On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? > > Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit > > but more confusion). > > One (important) part of the GLEP is the request that the arch tester has > passed the Staff Quiz and that a probation period should be passed before > read-only CVS access is given. I'm personally wondering how close this comes > to becoming a real developer (which, iirc, is something the trustees should > be called upon as the Foundation should keep track of "what" defines a > "Gentoo Developer", as developers have voting rights on the Foundation > board). As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for > being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their > work.
I not only took the staff quiz but the ebuild one as well (I think all of the amd64 AT had to) and my primary goals of doing so were to get a bit more credibility in bugzy and CVS access (ro). After spending a bit more time in bugzy I really would like to be able to see what comments are coming from other ATs as easily as I can tell which comments are from the devs. There have been a couple of developers that have tried to recruit me and although I think I have pretty good computer/Linux skills I still have a lot to learn about the internals of Gentoo. I intend to become a developer when I learn a bit more so I just consider an AT as an interim step in becoming a dev but many ATs want to stay at that level for whatever their reasons. (I can certainly understand the desire NOT to HAVE to follow these long threads. :) If ATs get a @g.o address the same problem will arise with determining the difference between an AT with similar experience to me and a developer with much more experience than me -- the need to refer to an external list. For that reason I would prefer to have sub-domain addresses. I think that there should be other sub-domains too but the current people should be left alone under a grandfather clause. That would also help to see what people are working on what. staff.gentoo.org forum staff amd64-at.gentoo.org Arch testers for the amd64 platform contributer.gentoo.org People that donate $$$ to Gentoo retired.gentoo.org A thanks for helping earlier domain For the developers like ferringb, solar, vapier, etc. that have many roles perhaps they could have the subdomains forward to their @gentoo.org address. But then again that complicates things for the -infra team which I don't want to do. That is why I've tried to keep quiet. There is still quite a bit for me to learn. Earlier vapier said: "AT's dont generally want that level of commitment. i'm not saying that what they contribute is meaningless (they have a useful role in the Gentoo project), just that i'd like to think that i, and other 'full devs', take it to the next level." While I believe that some AT's don't want that level of commitment I don't think that is true in the general sense. I think most of the AT's from the amd64 team are in the process of learning what it takes to truly be a developer before we are held accountable for the inevitable mistakes that we will make while learning. I just pray that I don't have to get to vapier's level before becoming a devel. He sets the bar at a very high level for both activity and skill (as do many other devs -- but not all). deltacow stated that in IRC... and my response to that is: "that is what IRC cloaks are for". Voice is used to mark AT's in #gentoo-amd64 but the voice is used mostly for tor users in #gentoo. I don't want to open a new can of worms by bringing in IRC but there really is no standardization throughout the channels and I think that is the way that most people want to keep it. I'm not suggesting anything until I learn more. Again, the ro-cvs access is what I want most from the GLEP and I offer this opinion because I was asked to. Thanks all, > I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment > of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)? > > Wkr, > Sven Vermeulen > > PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good > with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between > people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made > an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal > and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers". > > PPS > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670883395/002-5294388-6434402?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance -- Tres Melton IRC & Gentoo: RiverRat
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
