Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Does someone who is primarily working on (for arguents sake) Translations does not nessessarily know what they are doing in terms of overall gentoo dev. My impression is that they have voting privileges. My feeling is that people who know about TopicA will vote on things that relate to that Topic and refrain from voting on things of which they have little or no knowledge of. SO why the big argument Lares On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 13:22 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: Homer Parker wrote: On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | voting previleges Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. I don't remember that being asked for... As the GLEP asks to make the ATs staff, it'd imply giving them voting privileges. -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | voting previleges Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. Does that mean that all the Gentoo people who didn't take the ebuild quiz (which doesn't proove the understanding of complex technical issues very good anyway IMHO, but that's another issue) should not be allowed to vote? | Assuming by arch dev you mean arch tester, then: | | Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment | standards. | | Commitment first: | IMNSHO, it is rude to assume that an Arch Tester is less commited to | their work than an Arch Team member. All developers should be doing | their part and should hopefully ( we don't live in an ideal world here | after all ) be commited to doing their work well. A lack of | commitment that results in shoddy work should get them removed from | any developer role, Arch Team member or otherwise. An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same length of time as a full developer. That's not true. The whole point is that our current ATs *don't want* to be developers but are willing to help us and are a great help to keep the tree up to date, and we think it's unfair to honor a dev who doesn't much but sending emails with a nice signature but treating the ATs as users where they do far more than said dev. Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at least in theory...). Yes, in theory. Too bad reality doesn't match with theory far too often. I for example became dev after just submitting a few app-foo/bar works on amd64 bugs and moaning because it took too long to get them fixed. Of course i knew portage, but I really can't say that I have proven myself to be useful to the project when I joined it. BUT, this was before the idea of an AT existed. Today, every user who wants to become a amd64 developer, has to become AT first, to prove himself, so the problem you're speaking of was fixed, not caused by ATs. Regards, -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Homer Parker wrote: On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | voting previleges Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. I don't remember that being asked for... As the GLEP asks to make the ATs staff, it'd imply giving them voting privileges. -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luca Barbato wrote: | Simon Stelling wrote: | | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | | On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote: | | define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context. | | Repeated good contributions. | | | | Just to clarify: We're not going around giving everybody AT-status who | just asked for it. Normally, we note certain users filing many bugs | (=useful contributions) and then we're going toward them to ask them | whether they want to become ATs. Also, they have to pass the current | dev quizzes before they become ATs, so the required knowledge *is* there. | | So, basically, ATs already HAVE proven themselves to be useful. | | | Basically you are saying that they have the skill to be developers, they | prove them, but they don't have enough time to become full developers? | | lu No, you're confusing the different definitions of developers. In the gentoo sense of everyone is a developer(ebuild, infra, devrel, even forums), then yes, you would have to consider the AT as a developer. If you take a more classical view, or at least acknowledge the fact that everyone has the term developer in their title and discount this fact, then no, they are no more developers than infra or docs or devrel. When I started this project, I had in mind that all ATs would eventually become devs, but it's never been a requirement. Being an AT has many advantages over being a dev in some peoples eyes. Pros: As it's not official, you don't need to go through devrel(which at the time of inception was very slow) You are sheltered from a lot of the political bullshit that developers have to deal with. The commitment isn't nearly as large in terms of time. We mostly recruit ATs from those active on IRC. They already spend the time testing and filing bugs, helping user, and so on. It doesn't require a great change in time to move from helpful user to AT. It's a great training and recruiting tool. A number of ATs have stated that they don't feel they have the skills to be a developer. This is a statement that I would dispute in a number of cases. However, after being an active AT, you can't help but to learn how things work. ATs are encouraged to submit patches and solve problems. The transition from AT to dev is much less painful then if it was skipped. ATs come out of the program as knowledgeable people with a focus on testing. Gentoo /needs/ more of these people. And, most importantly, they get the feeling of satisfaction that comes with learning and the knowledge that they have contributed. Cons: Due to the fact that it hasn't been official, providing them with the tools to get their job done has been a challenge. I don't think it's right to ask for read-only CVS without them being official for example. While most developers have accepted them and use them, there are still those that look down on them. What can I say, other than a distro like gentoo inherently breeds a certain level of 31337ism, however misplaced or inappropriate it is. So, the choice for an AT to not pursue becoming a ebuild/arch dev is theirs to make, with a wide variety of reasons. It's not that they lack in any one skill that would otherwise make them a developer. Off topic, AMD64 requires that all new potential devs work as an AT for the reasons stated above. When they do make dev, they hit the ground running, and we don't need to invest anywhere near as much time as we would without the program, nor are there any misconceptions about how we operate. - -- === Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7 Gentoo Developer Relations ~ ===GPG Fingerprint=== ~ 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDJs9Z0K3RJaeXx6cRAj/XAKDJXKTeb4DsELKqC+EoOeLny1uRtQCfYx11 9a1/mby281fO6/0E6iTQAu0= =/S6n -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:21:22 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is | down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch | testers have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at | least in theory...). | | Yes, in theory. Too bad reality doesn't match with theory far too | often. I for example became dev after just submitting a few | app-foo/bar works on amd64 bugs and moaning because it took too | long to get them fixed. Of course i knew portage, but I really can't | say that I have proven myself to be useful to the project when I | joined it. BUT, this was before the idea of an AT existed. Today, | every user who wants to become a amd64 developer, has to become AT | first, to prove himself, so the problem you're speaking of was fixed, | not caused by ATs. Which is exactly why I like the idea of ATs, and exactly why I'm against giving them in effect 'full dev minus cvs write' powers. That can wait until they reach full dev status. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpNdgBxg9TT5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:39:31 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Each has a role, don't blur the AT definition into ebuild devs unless | you've after eliminating AT positions (something I doubt going by | your previous QA threads); if you're after that, state so please. Not at all. I'd like it much more if every new potential tree developer had to go through a phase of being an AT (or an equivalent role for doing ebuild development). It's a great way to find out whether people are *really* going to be good as a developer. | Your metric frankly is rather vague. Come up with one applicable to | AT's rather then vague terms impying AT's are not of the 'elite' | ebuild dev standard please. Bah, it's not elitism. It's a matter of experience. | IOW, nail down your metric, then apply it to the existing AT's (since | they are what we have to work with), and then re-raise your views | that they don't know what they're doing. Uh, that isn't my view. My view is that if they aren't yet experienced enough to have tree commit access then they're not yet experienced enough to vote. This is entirely separate from other developer roles. There's more than one way to become an experienced developer, some of which don't involve touching the tree. | An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same | length of time as a full developer. | | This is mild BS, since it's a common issue to all classes of gentoo | volunteers. Further, stats provided (as were requested) I'd posit | are actually better then ebuild dev stats, although worth noting the | sampling period differs. Try comparing it against the stats for the first month or two of every ebuild dev. | Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is | down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch | testers have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at | least in theory...). | | Not much for the natural ability bit/elitist stuff; the question is | what they've demonstrated, the work done. Doesn't matter if it | takes a person 20 hours, or 1, it's the end product people see, | and what ultimately matters (as you've pointed out in re: to QA). There are times when being able to get something right *quickly* is extremely important. Sometimes it makes no difference, sometimes it does. | Beyond that, I don't agreew with the Arch testers haven't proven | themselves. They wouldn't be marked as AT's by the arch if they | hadn't demonstrated some form of worth, just the same as ebuild devs | aren't recruited if they haven't shown some form of worth (this | includes ability to stick around for more then a month). Screwups | happen, but the stats offered are a pretty good indication they've | got that angle addressed imo. The whole point of the AT role is that it's used as a kind of testing ground for potential full developers. It's a way to get the benefit of extra testers without having to commit to giving them tree access straight away. | Treating contributors as second class citizens (in terms of cvs ro | access and email) is a really great way to piss on people who are | doing a good chunk of work for gentoo. Bah. By the same argument, why don't we give out @gentoo.org addresses to anyone who ever files a bug report? Otherwise we're treating our users as second class citizens! -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpLCxlyyovsO.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Hi all, This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done. I'm curious what you think of it. Have a nice day, -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] GLEP: 41 Title: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff Version: $Revision: 1.1 $ Last-Modified: $Date: 2005/09/07 18:53:20 $ Author: Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED], Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 7-Sep-2005 Post-History: Abstract Arch Testers should be treated as official Gentoo staff. Motivation == Since Mike Doty (kingtaco) created an Arch Tester (AT) project in January 2005 to reduce the developer's load and the amount of open keywording bugs for the amd64 porting team, many users have volunteered to become ATs. They are doing a fair share of everyday's work to keep the amd64 and ppc trees up to date. While they spent many hours and even had to pass the staff quiz, they are currently not recognized as official members of Gentoo. Specification = ATs should basically be treated as staff. This includes the following changes to the current situation: - Get a @gentoo.org email address - Get read-only access to the gentoo-x86 repository Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled situations like this for a while and only made positive experiences. Also, the idea of an arch tester as a trustful user who is able to test critical changes (such as hard masked software branches), should be expanded to every herd. These 'ATs' wouldn't be called arch testers as the 'arch' is irritating, instead, herd tester (HT) could be used. As arch testers (and herd testers) become official staff, they should be handled by DevRel. Backwards Compatibility === All current arch testers should be migrated to staff. Copyright = This document has been placed in the public domain.
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Not that I'm against this proposal necessarily, but it seems like this is everything short of giving them commit access to the tree. Perhaps the arch tester job could simply be made as a probationary period for developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers anyway, no? This is sort of like how many companies like to hire you for an internship the summer before you graduate, then full time when you graduate if you were/are good enough. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Simon Stelling wrote: Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled situations like this for a while and only made positive experiences. Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It reads as all users who want to become devs must be ATs. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Stephen P. Becker wrote: developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers anyway, no? This is sort of like how many companies like to hire you for an internship the summer before you graduate, then full time when you graduate if you were/are good enough. That's what the amd64 herd does for quite some time anyway, but apparently there are people who don't want to become developers with commit access, so that doesn't mean we'll loose all ATs ;) -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Simon Stelling wrote: Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled situations like this for a while and only made positive experiences. Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It reads as all users who want to become devs must be ATs. Well, depending how you want spin it, I either did or didn't mean that. I'm just saying that if we're going to basically give them everything that a developer gets sans commit access to the tree (which not even all official developers have by the way), why not take the extra step with them? I can tell you, for example, that if we encountered any folks good enough to be a mips AT, we'd probably just skip that whole business and make them an arch dev. I guess what I'm *really* asking is whether this GLEP is necessary? -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled situations like this for a while and only made positive experiences. Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It reads as all users who want to become devs must be ATs. Err, it is 'should' as in 'is recommended', not 'have to'. It really doesn't make sense for *every* herd, and should be handled on a per-herd basis anyway. -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:13 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It reads as all users who want to become devs must be ATs. That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a while now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches him about becoming a dev. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: I guess what I'm *really* asking is whether this GLEP is necessary? There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the ATs recognized as an official part of the team. As I said in my other post, we have several ATs that don't want to become devs, time constraints, etc, keep them from making that commitment. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's | done. I'm curious what you think of it. Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many stuck around but didn't do much? -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgptoJn94UFbl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Homer Parker wrote: On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: I guess what I'm *really* asking is whether this GLEP is necessary? There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the ATs recognized as an official part of the team. As I said in my other post, we have several ATs that don't want to become devs, time constraints, etc, keep them from making that commitment. If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges than some devs get even? -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Stephen P. Becker wrote: business and make them an arch dev. I guess what I'm *really* asking is whether this GLEP is necessary? As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The rest stayed AT. The oldest of the remaining has been AT since February, the youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is. -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:39:48PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: Arch Testers should be treated as official Gentoo staff. Reminds me of the forums glep - and as there, people working for Gentoo should become part of the team. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Monday 12 September 2005 22:45, Homer Parker wrote: That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a while now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches him about becoming a dev. That excluding my strange case eh? :P -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM) pgpm4I9uL0o1G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's | done. I'm curious what you think of it. Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many stuck around but didn't do much? Valid point ... maybe a probation period before the provisions of this glep kicks in if the numbers are acceptable? -- Martin Schlemmer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-12-09 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's | done. I'm curious what you think of it. Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many stuck around but didn't do much? Here is the list of AT's, current and past. Those marked active are really active. And most of them joined in the last 2-3 months. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml?part=1chap=1 Btw, do we want to be voters in the council elections? I'm not sure they should be given a more official status. But giving easier access to developership if they have done a good job as ATs should definitely be considered. -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer x86 Security Liaison -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many stuck around but didn't do much? This page has a list of all of the amd64 ATs, and current status: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml?part=1chap=1 Most are fairly active. Of the active ATs, I'd say 60-70%. or more, are active daily. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:57 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges than some devs get even? What would that be? -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The rest stayed AT. The oldest of the remaining has been AT since February, the youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is. And ppc has 3-4. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Homer Parker wrote: On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The rest stayed AT. The oldest of the remaining has been AT since February, the youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is. And ppc has 3-4. We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far. Of those, 1 has become a dev. -Joe -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 17:46 -0400, Joseph Jezak wrote: We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far. Of those, 1 has become a dev. W00t! Time to do some more recruiting, eh? ;) -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy [Summary] thread. There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother. Basically, if someone comes up to an arch tester and is like I just put this in the tree and I think it works on amd64, can you test it for me?. Said person has to wait an hour or so for rsync to propigate, which may be the time it takes to test the package. That provides a roadblock to efficiency, not to mention you only get so many emerge --syncs before our rysnc servers happily ban you. So in conclusion, I think the costs here (having more privileges) do not outweigh the benifits (having things tested for various archs within a reasonable time period). My 2 $denomination_here Chris White pgpMoDEMnrvJH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Chris White wrote: Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy [Summary] thread. There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother. Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Chris White wrote: Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy [Summary] thread. There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother. Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. Maybe the email address is not such an issue, but it does seem fair to people taking time and commitment as a 'kind' of reward .. after of course the probation period. Sort of off the topic, but wanted to clarify. Why I did though say that read-only access to CVS do make sense for AT testers, is that while they will not be actually fixing bugs (OK, so they can make patches, etc), they will though need to test stuff, and especially if its an important or urgent fix, not needing to wait for the rsync mirrors will be a plus for them. -- Martin Schlemmer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephen P. Becker wrote: Chris White wrote: Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy [Summary] thread. There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother. Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. -Steve For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask for it and take any requisite quizzes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQyYQoWzglR5RwbyYAQKirQ//cu25TXJFEEwWu7EfxUceWhFNcpgCfF3a 5Mwq0bsSNo9i6gSmyCthB11+DMYFbWtpJpRDi3Q/K0EvcxOcB3t3Hwf+ZQmeszI8 LQoT0pS2ZSjzLTVQWREUl781R+2abQelv33Prw33CTRcClRivU1tvZttQy1WZ8L0 EIqdetd0Z7Lc01coyvF+uDEOqdUiQKdNgBOpFBAfCbB/+Ve3HteWdKZ+R0dMvdGz vQVYwWwxi1ASKNjwvJc/GW0ON9BseuUyRAtNr/jzB7qU6DkFd/xt0CgsHqPTkepR r5sEzjQv8YP78x24SqjxR0bNKCCSKTq7FD9H2+xTF9tlNJ8FHrHun1wNU+i6ECgk JIXcJefn+3Nf+eZZ88DFFVhon1/5nfag9mQ5ST5gpRBVhEEAyojdRdCB1YOtHO/Y jMbDyuR3KX++Q8Wu8ui/yPnH3wPuUmjJ47L+0jy/dcxoQvKLUGOjlXj0m4NE0o34 Gp8jIB+Gi4Gwt7K4Oj32pNA5YqYDAXsVU/Sb58fQk17zB3WqQg1Ky5VN1egz/Uqp 5pBCRi5KM3L9zqkJ6/kJfFy88eOOEcrO401y+wZthc+2xF2T9hlGmc9GoKrWtmMF RJpVtaQl8n8J8edd93WOexAai8zYCGypErAJaLWUKgzEbPXZTwHNdoiZaIy02rjm BR0C7UuynUM= =Q3PZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. -Steve For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask for it and take any requisite quizzes. You also have misunderstood my point. I've always been under the impression that ATs are regarded highly enough that they could easily become members of the dev team. With that in mind, *if* we are going to give them nearly every privilege an arch dev has anyway, why not go one step further and just make them an official arch dev and avoid unnecessary bloating of categories with respect to Gentoo dev-team membership? They don't even need commit access if they don't want it. We currently have developers without tree access already in any case. Should we reclassify those folks as well? Besides, if you want to get technical, our entire userbase are arch testers to some extent. They run Gentoo, report bugs, unmask packages locally, submit keywording requests to bugzilla, etc. The good users make Gentoo a good distribution by providing feedback on bugzilla. The very best of these folks are typically tapped for membership in arch teams. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. Some people don't want to be a dev. Some people can't commit the resources to maintain dev status. There's a lot more responsibility in being a dev then an AT, and some people don't want that. So, becoming an AT is a way they can contribute without having to worry about all the extra responsibilities involved with being a dev. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:34 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask for it and take any requisite quizzes. ATs will be read only, we've never asked for cvs write access for them. -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:53 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. -Steve For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask for it and take any requisite quizzes. You also have misunderstood my point. I've always been under the impression that ATs are regarded highly enough that they could easily become members of the dev team. With that in mind, *if* we are going to give them nearly every privilege an arch dev has anyway, why not go one step further and just make them an official arch dev and avoid unnecessary bloating of categories with respect to Gentoo dev-team membership? They don't even need commit access if they don't want it. We currently have developers without tree access already in any case. Should we reclassify those folks as well? You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev. My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit access. If the people involved decide they want to become committing devs, it also make it easier to make that transition. If they don't want to commit, they can stay as an AT. Besides, if you want to get technical, our entire userbase are arch testers to some extent. They run Gentoo, report bugs, unmask packages locally, submit keywording requests to bugzilla, etc. The good users make Gentoo a good distribution by providing feedback on bugzilla. The very best of these folks are typically tapped for membership in arch teams. I agree. What the AT program has done for amd64, tho, is give us a base of users that have known skills (they were recruited and passed the ebuild quiz) and have a known process they follow for testing and marking bugs, so that the devs have a much easier time staying on top of keywording issues. We've basically said that we trust the ATs to know how to test a package, and we'll take their word for it that it works. It's been very useful for us, and we think it will be useful for others. Daniel (former AT) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: Simon Stelling wrote: This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done. I'm curious what you think of it. I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved. Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from reading the GLEP that they _don't_ currently have commit access and havent taken any quizzes)? How do they get their keywording work into the tree? Thanks, Daniel They don't have commit access (or any CVS access at all) but have taken the ebuild quiz, the first dev quiz. They have the ability to KEYWORD bugs in bugzilla, that the only special ability they get (other than voice in #-amd64-dev) currently. Daniel (former AT) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephen P. Becker wrote: You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev. Wrong. My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit access. My point exactly! Why have another category? If the people involved decide they want to become committing devs, it also make it easier to make that transition. If they don't want to commit, they can stay as an AT. Then shall we reclassify all the developers that currently don't have commit access to the portage tree? -Steve And how is an Arch Dev different from say a member of devrel? It's not a category per se, it's a role. Person X does Devrel, person Y does portage, you do Arch Developing on MIPS, and new dev Z is an Arch Tester. How does this make anything more difficult than it already is? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQyYuUWzglR5RwbyYAQLyJA/+KiO5kzJGjqX57fTWOM6eN86JiCmfDvfY YzbnEBc7IThiNxvNTyPCnzPE9Wo22MqrVKdcWIrKYx0T+xkX89EzV4779vmhj00f qhDRSDRx09nENQ2mIDDU7733LgMKgAp0IqVgmBH48HUKDjAOEgVhHO82Byii9Yiw ysXoJkfth6RQ44PW5TTYvD9d+r+RKB4PYk6Q1SrJAk9yYaL6HDq/zrRMrFvNeABH HojBiOkdG/IvbF2jW/A7nx1V27HAzo21XR+9EbtUIrrMc5fP2V4UcTQ39TZGQRo2 A33qEMsZmNmE/0awcEmSkglQfGQ6VSVT/Ha2SC9NuIAIRXE3ynVc1bi+T5II5W/n +HTa0Bq6cTmTNOaxNU1Ym6A5aiQdfrcQYvH/yYBJGAHwr4XseLl5qQoCycn77mjP aeFo81a/Vm31k36CZROR4iIWid8uNl2PnmBSyvnYJpWX8UaqES92JWUm34yS2sND e5v/srIsdQf+chaxHwaU9r6R0OQEdIuIbyh6OD/khEuSrrcUbsPpTyOUnCVNduC3 wxqOqUsLerSmL/PPjZxCxV2xpsbsr+PmhPWBQY8NgOAsY6mVEgok6Cx2jMF6DVK5 uk/zomSi4uMvhpps/LotDImi5/TcTsBnnoKjIIOpjfcvAv8U9GzZVBrnmONuqW1C wO+x++yjIJk= =S6q7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Top posting, since trying to make a point here in relation to everything that follows from your email. define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context. It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same level as ebuild devs, so it best be defined. On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:14:34AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I'm not confusing anything here. Arch Devs ( ala members of arch | teams ) and Arch testers should be equal in terms of developer | status. Why? Arch testers *aren't* full developers. They may become them, but they haven't yet demonstrated that they're capable of being a full developer. | voting previleges Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. | Assuming by arch dev you mean arch tester, then: | | Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment | standards. | | Commitment first: | IMNSHO, it is rude to assume that an Arch Tester is less commited to | their work than an Arch Team member. All developers should be doing | their part and should hopefully ( we don't live in an ideal world here | after all ) be commited to doing their work well. A lack of | commitment that results in shoddy work should get them removed from | any developer role, Arch Team member or otherwise. An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same length of time as a full developer. | Being a Gentoo developer isn't ( or I should say, shouldn't be ) all | about what happens in CVS. There are many people who support other | portions of gentoo forums/bugs/devrel/testing/user | relations/gentooexperimental.org/etc and some sort of stupid elitism | about being a better dev or a dev that has better skillz because | said dev has commit access is simply stupid. Devs with commit access | may be skilled in the workings of the tree ( and there are certainly | devs with commit access that do not possess such a skillset ), but | that should be why they have commit access, because they possess the | skills to manage the tree. Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at least in theory...). | Personally I would rather see people's CVS commit access by | herd/package/section than just generic tree access. Commiting | something outside your Role becomes then contacting someone who knows | what they are doing and who can look over your work (good!). The bad | part being when no one is around who has commit access. A resolution | for this situation would need to be required. Expections would need | to occur as well ( tree-wide commits, and other things that happen | from time to time ). However I'd like to see more input on things | like this ( along with say, council approval? :) ). Take a look at the branches proposal that's been floating around. It's basically what you suggested with fewer holes and a more realistic view of how development gets done. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm ~harring pgpvx1v3OLjWE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context. Repeated good contributions. | It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same | level as ebuild devs, so it best be defined. ATs are welcome to move onto the same level as ebuild devs. They can do it by going through the usual recruitment process. Plus, their work as an AT will put them at a considerable advantage here. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgp5SB6qf6GtG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
With the 'proven' definition being repeated contributions, and explicit in the previous email the view AT's are lesser, but can move 'up' to the level of an ebuild dev, back to this email... On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:14:34AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I'm not confusing anything here. Arch Devs ( ala members of arch | teams ) and Arch testers should be equal in terms of developer | status. Why? Arch testers *aren't* full developers. They may become them, but they haven't yet demonstrated that they're capable of being a full developer. Arch devs != ebuild devs != ATs They're different roles. Stop intermixing them, unless you're going to start throwing portage devs, doc devs, infra, and devrel in. There _is_ a common subset to portage devs, arch devs, ebuild devs, and ATs, but that does not mean they're equal in requirements and roles. Each has a role, don't blur the AT definition into ebuild devs unless you've after eliminating AT positions (something I doubt going by your previous QA threads); if you're after that, state so please. | voting previleges Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. Have doc devs demonstrated their understanding of complex technical issues? Portage devs? Infra? Your metric frankly is rather vague. Come up with one applicable to AT's rather then vague terms impying AT's are not of the 'elite' ebuild dev standard please. Additionally, Note that those proposing the glep utilize AT's in their arch; they may have a different view of role/ability of the AT's then you do, and of their abilities. IOW, nail down your metric, then apply it to the existing AT's (since they are what we have to work with), and then re-raise your views that they don't know what they're doing. Back to the complex technical issues, point I'm getting at is that the problem domain of both differ, even if they may have a common subset. | Assuming by arch dev you mean arch tester, then: | | Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment | standards. | | Commitment first: | IMNSHO, it is rude to assume that an Arch Tester is less commited to | their work than an Arch Team member. All developers should be doing | their part and should hopefully ( we don't live in an ideal world here | after all ) be commited to doing their work well. A lack of | commitment that results in shoddy work should get them removed from | any developer role, Arch Team member or otherwise. An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same length of time as a full developer. This is mild BS, since it's a common issue to all classes of gentoo volunteers. Further, stats provided (as were requested) I'd posit are actually better then ebuild dev stats, although worth noting the sampling period differs. | Being a Gentoo developer isn't ( or I should say, shouldn't be ) all | about what happens in CVS. There are many people who support other | portions of gentoo forums/bugs/devrel/testing/user | relations/gentooexperimental.org/etc and some sort of stupid elitism | about being a better dev or a dev that has better skillz because | said dev has commit access is simply stupid. Devs with commit access | may be skilled in the workings of the tree ( and there are certainly | devs with commit access that do not possess such a skillset ), but | that should be why they have commit access, because they possess the | skills to manage the tree. Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at least in theory...). Not much for the natural ability bit/elitist stuff; the question is what they've demonstrated, the work done. Doesn't matter if it takes a person 20 hours, or 1, it's the end product people see, and what ultimately matters (as you've pointed out in re: to QA). Beyond that, I don't agreew with the Arch testers haven't proven themselves. They wouldn't be marked as AT's by the arch if they hadn't demonstrated some form of worth, just the same as ebuild devs aren't recruited if they haven't shown some form of worth (this includes ability to stick around for more then a month). Screwups happen, but the stats offered are a pretty good indication they've got that angle addressed imo. The only bit I'd actually disagree with on the glep is the 2 weeks period for conversion of an AT to an ebuild devs; the two roles (imo) are seperate, those handling ebuild devs should set the requirements themselves, just the same as those handling AT devs should set the requirements they perceive as needed. My 2 cents? They're doing work for gentoo.
