----- On 11 Oct, 2015, at 4:17 PM, wraeth wra...@wraeth.id.au wrote: > On 11/10/15 18:52, Ian Delaney wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 16:27:15 +0200 Alexis Ballier >> <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:09:11 +0200 Michał Górny >>> <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, developers. >>>> >>>> I have the pleasure >> >> :? >> >>>> to announce that we have formed a new Reviewers team [1] for >>>> Gentoo. The team is going to assemble developers willing to >>>> perform ebuild reviews and help contributors improve their >>>> ebuild skills. >>>> >>>> The main goal of the team is to handle GitHub pull requests. We >>>> are going to review incoming PRs, communicate with maintainers >>>> and merge them as appropriate. In particular, we're going to >>>> help willing contributors get high-quality, PGP-signed commits >>>> into Gentoo, therefore helping them prepare to become Gentoo >>>> developers. >>> >>> This is cool >>> >>>> The side goal is to review current Gentoo commits for major QA >>>> violations and other issues, aiming at improving the quality >>>> of ebuilds in Gentoo and helping other developers using bash, >>>> ebuilds and git effectively. >>> >>> This is completely unrelated: since we've had gentoo-commits ml, >> >> which was promptly utlised >> >>> every one has been able to do commit reviews easily, and most >>> devs have done so. Self-proclamed reviewers project certainly >>> does not have the monopoly of best practices nor perfect >>> knowledge. I hope they do keep the monopoly of being harassing >>> though :) >>> >>> Also, you should probably focus on what's really important: >>> reviews like "this is weird, care to explain?" or stylistic >>> nitpicks are just a waste of every one time, meaning more >>> important stuff does not get done. >>> >> >> To my observation the reaction to this has been between displeasure >> and dismay. Yesterday the dev-ML was flooded with the first day's >> publication of the members' reviews. Firstly the gentoo-commits ML >> to my understanding is intended to be used for and by qa members. >> This project has one whom we presume has the discretion to declare >> the use of the qa hat at whim. >> >> As someone once put it, it's not the product or message it's the >> delivery of the package. This project in its creation is made of >> self appointed members who assume the status and qualification to >> suddenly launch their evaluations upon unsuspecting folk the >> community wide with neither warning nor their prior knowledge nor >> consent. The editing to the page illustrates already significant >> back pedalling from feedback already challenging its selected mode >> of delivery. >> >> The project goals and 'would be' mission statement are in fact >> legitimate and have the backing of Council members. The execution >> has been done independently, unilaterally and with no input or >> collaboration with Council to my knowledge. The actions of this >> project potentially impact on every developer / user of the gentoo >> project, addressing the core skills of both. Yet it has been made, >> announced and executed in this style. >> >> I invested study time in several units in teaching and lecturing in >> my university education under the education department. Sorry but >> the modi operandi by these self proclaimed teachers and educators >> thus far violate almost every fundamental principle in the art of >> teaching that I learned from the course. There have also been users >> who have expressed concern to me over this directly, some of which >> have indicated they will also email this list to make their views >> known. > > I am one of the users who spoke to idella4 about this, but I wanted to > repeat this publicly in order to highlight the point of view of > contributing user as opposed to a developer. > > Firstly I would like to say that I appreciate feedback on my work - it > helps me to improve the quality of my work both for Gentoo and personally. > > I also agree whole-heartedly to the concept of the Reviewers project, in > that highlighting common improvements that could be made would benefit > both contributors who participate and Gentoo as a whole. > > Having said that, however, I do not appreciate the method in which these > criticisms were delivered, and believe it extends beyond the idea of > the Reviewers project. > > I feel that it is inappropriate for criticisms of contributor's work to > be broadcast on a mailing list that is read not only by the developer > community, but by users as well, without their consent. This is not a > case where I am particularly embarrassed or upset - if others can learn > from my mistakes, then they are mistakes I am happy to make (preferably > only once). But doing so publicly, with identifying information, is > inappropriate.
I will second your thoughts on this. As a new proxy-maintainer I expect a lot of feedback, and I welcome the idea of the reviewers project to help people like me out. However this could be a little off putting by just sending out to a general mailing list. Maybe there is a better way to give this feedback? Thanks Brendan
