On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 11:22:05AM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote: > Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > 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. > > I believe we have a problem enticing new devlopers to join. It > shouldn't be difficult in learning how to commit changes to a tree. > > What is "well versed"? Understanding the ways on how to break the tree? If > that > is the case, then we are doing something wrong. > I come from a different background being a recruiter and having done most, if not all, the work to clean up the current developer base so far.
And from what I'm seeing we have to make it *harder* to become a gentoo developer if we want to keep any quality at all. It's not that we don't get lots of new developers but looking back at all the developers I've been retiring due to inactivity it's fairly clear that a huge part of them never did more than 5 commits or so.. And it takes a good deal more than 5 commits before you know all the intricacies of portage/gentoo and are able to do quality work on a consistent basis. I've mentored quite a few developers myself and I believe I did a fairly good job as a mentor but there's still quite some difference between first few commits and later commits from those devs as they gain experience. Personally, I don't want Gentoo to be characterised by "revolving door" developers and I'd expect users would be fairly unhappy with that as well. > > > 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. > > I am arguing that we don't need testing of potential developers. It > is bad for the community. It is saying that we don't have any faith > with our recruiting process. If we only only worried about tree breakage, > then this is the wrong solution. The Arch Tester / Herd Tester projects solves many of the current problems but I very much believe we need something akin to the current tests. We *will* try to improve those tests but I'm going to fight "making it easier to become a developer" hard as that's a very bad direction from my point of view. > > > > 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. > > I agree. The mentality should be one project, even if the herds are > split into more project. I do not like when people say that someone > has stepped on their toes when committing a change to another herd.. > Typically people are trying to help. If there is a breakage then it > is a problem for Gentoo, not just a herd. Having a live tree just > adds to this problem. > > > > 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? > > It isn't. It is how a job works. If someone isn't getting along with > the team, they are fired. Same principle. You know, I could probably swing a few votes if I wanted to and so could many other devs.. I'd call that a popularity contest as opposed to the currently proposed (see gentoo-devrel ML) conflict resolution policy that have developers interested in conflict resolution working out the solution (as opposed to a large but random selection of developers who could probably care less). > > > > > > > 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. > > The council should not vote on gleps are provide policy. They should > be there to handle the money and world-wide problems. > > The developers should drive innovation; not the council. > > As in all democracies things get done slowly. We don't need a > democracy within Gentoo, just a clear way of creating progress. > > -Ryan The developers (and many users) *are* driving innovation but we still need some kind of checks and balances in a 300+ group of developers. If we were only 20 developers this would probably come naturally from irc discussions but we're no longer a small, tightly nit group of developers. As part of "growing up" we (naturally) need more communication between developers before running off with the newest, crazy idea. Gentoo is no longer a playground - we have some 10k+ packages in the tree and 100k+ users at least afaik. We *need* to take our responsibility seriously and not play hazard with all those users/system. So.. What can we do to improve things? There's lots of things that can be improved in my opinion. Developer relations is currently pushing out a new proposed conflict resolution policy for public discussion on the gentoo-devrel ML. It's been out for a couple days already and I have yet to see a single comment on it. Likewise, we're trying to come up with a proposal for improving recruitment / quizzes. I'd love to see people (both users and developers) get involved in these discussions instead of posting general rants on the current state of gentoo. Working on small corners of gentoo can make a big difference (in a short amount of time) and I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd love to see that :) Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
