On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:14:53AM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote: > > I find that developer growth as being a problem. Adding a developer to gentoo > should be as easy as 1. has the user contributed numerous (~5+) patches that > helps the project move forward. If yes, then commit access should be given. > Adding a developer is usually quite a chore. There are numerous reasons why > this is a problem: having a live tree, taking a test, and not defining within > policy when a person could possibly get commit access. > > All these reasons leave the project stagnant and lacking developers. >
Maybe certain projects are (and maybe there are a lot of undermaintained packages) but overall I would say we are not really lacking developers; what areas would you say we're lacking devs in exactly? The recruitment process should be tightened further to ensure we have a solid, educated dev base. This isn't about shutting people out, it's about ensuring that anyone with commit access is well-versed in how we do things. > Why do people have to take a test? Is it to make sure they won't break the > tree? If it is, then the solution of a test is wrong. We do want to make > sure > our developers understand gentoo, but I argue that the bugtracker is all we > need. As long as a person is adding value to gentoo and they have "proven" > themselves, then they *should* have commit access. > Many people with useful contributions can commit garbage due to not quite knowing what they're doing. The quiz process is an attempt to address that. We used to recruit the way you suggest and it worked for years; we've since outgrown that. "Testing" recruits provides further education. Admittedly the quiz as it stands is archaic and needs reworking. I believe the recruiters team is working on addressing that. > > Everyone here is on the same team. There will be some breakages in the tree > and those can be dealt with. Like Seemant [1] said, herds are just groups of > like *packages*. The QA Policy is wrong when it says cross-team assistance; > we > are all on the *same* team. The tree should naturally work. If it doesn't > then that is a bug for all of us. > OK, well, realistically we are composed of projects working on various areas of Gentoo that must work together with one another to form a whole. Gentoo is not and should not be one big amorphous blob. > Conflict resolution should not be a subproject. It should *not* exist at all. > Rules need to be in place to avoid conflict. Having some sort of voting > structure for all the developers (this doesn't mean requiring everyone to > vote) > and not just the council or devrel makes a lot of sense for most things. > If I > don't like how someone is acting within the project there should be a vote and > then see if that person is kicked out. No trial, no anything besides a vote. > And if I lose I have to deal with it. Either stay with the project, or find > something else. This solution just works. Why should conflict resolution be a popularity contest? > > Gentoo should be a fun environment. The previous paragraph should be taken as > a last resort. > > __Problem: GLEPs__ > > I dislike GLEPs. Usually they sit on the website for a long long time not > doing anything. My vote (+1) is get rid of gleps and do everything by email > and a vote by the developers. AFAIK, the board votes on the GLEPs. Bad Idea. > It stifles things from getting done, and there is no ownership of who is going > to implement the idea. > > A new idea proposal should be mailed to a mailinglist (-innovation?) with > details of timeline to completion, impact, and who is doing the > implementation. > If it sounds like a good one, then there is a vote and things proceed. I like > progress. Well, I think we all like progress. The council votes on GLEPs; I don't see how extending voting to include _all of Gentoo_ would speed things up or contribute to progress... this is why we elect representatives. Overall I think this would be a regression. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
