Does someone who is primarily working on (for arguents sake)
Translations does not nessessarily "know what they are doing" in terms
of overall gentoo dev. My impression is that they have voting
privileges.
My feeling is that people who know about TopicA will vote on things that
relate to that T
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:39:31 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Each has a role, don't blur the AT definition into ebuild devs unless
| you've after eliminating AT positions (something I doubt going by
| your previous QA threads); if you're after that, state so please.
Not at all. I
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:21:22 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is
| > down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch
| > testers have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at
| > least in
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:08:41AM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> No, you're confusing the different definitions of developers. In the
> gentoo sense of everyone is a developer(ebuild, infra, devrel, even
> forums), then yes, you would have to consider the AT as a "developer."
Uuuuh, watch your languag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato wrote:
| Simon Stelling wrote:
|
|> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|>
|>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>> wrote:
|>> | define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
|>>
|>> Repeated good con
Simon Stelling wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
Repeated good contributions.
Just to clarify: We're not going around giving everybody AT-status who
just a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
Repeated good contributions.
Just to clarify: We're not going around giving everybody AT-status who just
asked for it. Normally, we
Homer Parker wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| voting previleges
Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of
complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who
know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven them
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| voting previleges
Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of
complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who
know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves.
Does that mean that all the Gentoo people who d
With the 'proven' definition being repeated contributions, and
explicit in the previous email the view AT's are lesser, but can move
'up' to the level of an ebuild dev, back to this email...
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:14:34AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400 Ale
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | voting previleges
>
> Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of
> complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who
> know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves.
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
Repeated good contributions.
| It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same
| level as ebuild devs, so it best be defined.
ATs are welcom
Top posting, since trying to make a point here in relation to
everything that follows from your email.
define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same level
as ebuild devs, so it best be defined.
On Tue, Sep 13, 200
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I'm not confusing anything here. Arch Devs ( ala members of arch
| teams ) and Arch testers should be equal in terms of developer
| status.
Why? Arch testers *aren't* full developers. They may become them, but
they haven'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:41:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | And how is an "Arch Dev" different from say a member of devrel?
>
> Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
>
> Experience, commitme
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:41:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| And how is an "Arch Dev" different from say a member of devrel?
Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment standards.
Stop confusing arch devs (who ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>> My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
>> being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
>> being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
>> access.
>
>
> My point exactly! Why have another category?
Because their rol
You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev.
Wrong.
My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
access.
My point exactly! Why have another category?
If the people invol
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people
> involved.
>
> Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from
> reading
> the GLEP that they _don't_ currently have commit access and havent
> taken any
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> > This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done.
> > I'm curious what you think of it.
>
> I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved.
>
> Perhaps you could expl
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:53 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> >>Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
> >>at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
> >>for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
> >>commit acc
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:34 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned
> developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit
> access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask
> for it and take any requisite qui
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
> Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more
> privileges
> at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
> for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
> commit acc
Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is
supposed to be the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
>
>> Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a
>> nice tidy [Summary] thread.
>>
>> There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges
>> than some other devs
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
> > Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice
> > tidy
> > [Summary] thread.
> >
> > There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
> > some other devs.
Simon Stelling wrote:
This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done.
I'm curious what you think of it.
I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved.
Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from reading
the GLEP that
Chris White wrote:
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
[Summary] thread.
There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
even so, the whole point of
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
[Summary] thread.
There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
even so, the whole point of this thing is to mak
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 17:46 -0400, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far. Of those, 1 has become a
> dev.
W00t! Time to do some more recruiting, eh? ;)
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
Homer Parker wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
rest
stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February,
the
youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.
An
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
>
> As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
> rest
> stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February,
> the
> youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.
And ppc has 3-4
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:57 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
> If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges
> than some devs get even?
What would that be?
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mail
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
> official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
> stuck around but didn't do much?
This page has a list of all of the amd64 ATs, and cur
On Mon, 2005-12-09 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
> | done. I'm curious what you think of it.
>
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
> | done. I'm curious what you think of it.
>
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch
On Monday 12 September 2005 22:45, Homer Parker wrote:
> That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a
> while now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of
> moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches him
> about becoming
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:39:48PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Arch Testers should be treated as official Gentoo staff.
Reminds me of the forums glep - and as there, people working for
Gentoo should become part of the team.
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo d
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
business and make them an arch dev. I guess what I'm *really* asking is
whether this GLEP is necessary?
As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The rest
stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February, the
youngest since
Homer Parker wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I guess what I'm *really* asking is
whether this GLEP is necessary?
There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to g
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
| done. I'm curious what you think of it.
Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
official developers? How many have disapp
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I guess what I'm *really* asking is
> whether this GLEP is necessary?
There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the
ATs recognized
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:13 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's?
> It
> reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."
That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a while
now, and it seems to w
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if
an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been
AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the process of an AT. The amd64 por
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if
an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been
AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the process
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers
anyway, no? This is sort of like how many companies like to hire you
for an internship the summer before you graduate, then full time when
you graduate if you were/are good enough.
That's what the amd
Simon Stelling wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the process of an AT. The amd64 portin
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:39 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> ATs should basically be treated as staff. This includes the following changes
> to the current situation:
>
> - Get a @gentoo.org email address
Personally think this might only be fair.
> - Get read-only access to the gentoo-x86 reposit
Not that I'm against this proposal necessarily, but it seems like this
is everything short of giving them commit access to the tree. Perhaps
the "arch tester" job could simply be made as a probationary period for
developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers
anyway, no? T
Hi all,
This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done. I'm
curious what you think of it.
Have a nice day,
--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GLEP: 41
Title: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Version: $Revision: 1.1 $
Last-Mod
51 matches
Mail list logo
