On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:38:17AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jon Portnoy wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:41:31AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: > >> inviting community) and why you think stricter test make for better > >> developers, why you think harder tests would cut down more on the quick > >> in and out people. > > > > Empirical evidence agrees. > > > > Our current quiz practices have done a good job keeping out a lot of the > > incompetence that used to slip through before we took that approach. > > > > Stricter tests make for more knowledgable developers and folks with a > > lack of commitment to Gentoo are usually not willing to tackle the > > learning curve. > > > > As for whether or not we're inviting or not, anybody can contribute. > > They don't need to be @gentoo.org to do so. What we really need is to > > focus more on those outside contributions. > > > > so that is where this is all coming from, who said that we should hand > out @gentoo.org ? i never said that, they don't need it, and everyone > gets to feel all special about the @gentoo.org the way they are used to, > a committing contributor does not require a @gentoo.org > That's called a "figure of speech" -- I was not literally referring to the email address but rather Gentoo developer status. Sorry for being unclear.
My point was more that commit access is not a prerequisite to contribute. > > and unless you give them a general aptitude and attitude test, you do > not know a thing about the person who answered a few technical questions > (more) > Sure you do. You know whether they know what they're doing in the tree. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
