On 26/04/2010 00:18, Steve Holden wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
<skip<at> pobox.com> writes:
Sean> However, I will step up for him and say that I've known him a
Sean> decade, and he's very trustworthy. He has been the president (we
Sean> call that position Maximum Leader) of our Linux Users Group here
Sean> for 5 years or so.
Given that Sean is vouching for him I'm fine with it.
I'm not sure I agree. Of course it could be argued the risk is minimal, but I
think it's better if all people go through the same path of proving their
motivation and quality of work.
And if there's something wrong with that process we'd better address it than
give random privileges to people we like :)
I think there is a definite "unpriced externality" to keeping the
process barriers high here. I don't belive from conversations at the
language summit / PyCon that the community is being overrun with hordes
of unworthies clamoring to triage Python bugs: rather the opposite, in
fact. It seems to me that backing from an established community member
ought to be enough to get a prospective triageur at least provisional
roles to do the work, with the caveat that it might be revoked it it
didn't turn out well. If it does turn out well, then look to *expand*
that user's roles in the community, with a nice helping of public
acclaim to go with it.
I am not arguing for "making exceptions for friends" here; rather that
the acknowledged issues with inclusiveness / espansion of the developer
community require making changes to the rules to encourage more
participation.
BTW, language like "prov[ing] their motivation" is itself demotivating,
and likely contributes to the status quo ante.
With my PSF hat on I'd like to support Tres here (and, by extension,
Sean's proposal). Lowering the barriers of entry is a desirable goal.
If adding people created work for already-busy developers then I'd be
against it*, but with Sean offering to mentor his new protege and ensure
that he limits his role to triage initially that doesn't seem to be an
issue.
Maybe it's time to review the way people "prove their motivation and the
quality of their work"?
Perhaps mentoring by an established committer could become a *standard*
acceptable way to gain tracker privileges. It makes a lot of sense for
the barriers to entry for bug triaging to be substantially lower than
for commit privileges.
I agree that we should try and establish straightforward and consistent
procedures, but also agree that those procedures should serve the
community rather than vice-versa.
All the best,
Michael
regards
Steve
* I'd be against it, but I'd fight to change the development process so
that adding new people *didn't* create work. We should, in my opinion,
be looking for a continual influx of new worker bees.
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of
your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any
and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap,
clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and
acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your
employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without
prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you
have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your
employer.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
