On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 13:16 Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm happy to see you do this. It'll be very interesting what kind of
> responses you get. Do you know how to get the list of 130 people? (I don't,
> but Mariatta probably has it already.)
>
WFM! Thanks, Ethan!
I guess the first step is to g
Le 19/06/2018 à 22:26, Ethan Furman a écrit :
> On 06/19/2018 11:14 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>> Ok, let me be even clearer :-)
>>
>> While I understand that there is a need to show the world that
>> we need more active core devs, this drive to shelve existing
>> developers is not a good way to
On 06/19/2018 11:14 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Ok, let me be even clearer :-)
While I understand that there is a need to show the world that
we need more active core devs, this drive to shelve existing
developers is not a good way to achieve this.
Here's a simple approach which is effective with
I'm happy to see you do this. It'll be very interesting what kind of
responses you get. Do you know how to get the list of 130 people? (I don't,
but Mariatta probably has it already.)
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:51 PM Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 06/19/2018 11:17 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On Mon, 1
On 06/19/2018 11:17 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 17:56 Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'd do it as follows. This basically makes withdrawal voluntary unless
>> they don't respond at all.
1. Make a list of people who've not shown any sign of activity (on the
>> b.p.o. or GitHub,
I honestly have very little stake in this -- the minimum that I'd like to
see is that unused GitHub permissions be revoked to reduce the risk when a
dormant core dev is compromised. (Though if they contribute regularly to
*other* GitHub projects even that risk seems minimal.)
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 17:56 Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'd do it as follows. This basically makes withdrawal voluntary unless
> they don't respond at all.
>
> 1. Make a list of people who've not shown any sign of activity (on the
> b.p.o. or GitHub, as reviewer or committer) for at least one year
On 19.06.2018 18:39, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 12:41 M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>> On 18.06.2018 21:07, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> Hm, unless I misunderstood, MAL's
>>>
Being a core developer of Python is a status
>>>
>>> suggests that core devs might want to keep this status
> On Jun 19, 2018, at 1:35 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> My intent is to maintain a list of active core developers. If an
> inactive core dev becomes active again, they should be able to
> retrieve quickly the "active" status. Is "emeritus" still a good name
> with such constraint?
Yes. Dropp
2018-06-19 2:54 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
> I'd do it as follows. This basically makes withdrawal voluntary unless they
> don't respond at all.
>
> 1. Make a list of people who've not shown any sign of activity (on the
> b.p.o. or GitHub, as reviewer or committer) for at least one year.
> 2. Ema
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:12 PM Tal Einat wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:54 AM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> >
> > If we currently have a list of core devs we should by default change
> people's status to emeritus core dev when they choose (c). They may also
> choose to be removed from such
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 12:41 M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 18.06.2018 21:07, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Hm, unless I misunderstood, MAL's
> >
> >> Being a core developer of Python is a status
> >
> > suggests that core devs might want to keep this status since it confers
> > "status" on their person
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:54 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> If we currently have a list of core devs we should by default change people's
> status to emeritus core dev when they choose (c). They may also choose to be
> removed from such a list. But I don't know if we have a list.
We have at le
I'd do it as follows. This basically makes withdrawal voluntary unless they
don't respond at all.
1. Make a list of people who've not shown any sign of activity (on the
b.p.o. or GitHub, as reviewer or committer) for at least one year.
2. Email all of them, asking if they still want to be a core d
What will be the threshold of activity? For example, if one hasn’t been
committing due to time but occasionally comments on or opens b.p.o. issues
or reviews pull requests, etc, would that mean the logo disappears? There
is value in having the logo show up when commenting.
—Chris
On Mon, Jun 18,
On 18 June 2018 at 20:41, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 18.06.2018 21:07, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Hm, unless I misunderstood, MAL's
>>
>>> Being a core developer of Python is a status
>>
>> suggests that core devs might want to keep this status since it confers
>> "status" on their person (it looks
On 6/18/2018 3:24 PM, Jack Jansen wrote:
I know that this is the case for me.
I wouldn’t _dream_ of committing anything (after 10 years or so) without
first consulting with current core developers, etc.
We would, of course, help you get back up to speed with the current
workflow, if you wish
On 18.06.2018 21:07, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Hm, unless I misunderstood, MAL's
>
>> Being a core developer of Python is a status
>
> suggests that core devs might want to keep this status since it confers
> "status" on their person (it looks good on a resume for sure). And I
> wouldn't want to
I propose "emeritus core dev". It's a word that conveys *extra* status.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:24 PM Jack Jansen wrote:
> I know that this is the case for me.
>
> I wouldn’t _dream_ of committing anything (after 10 years or so) without
> first consulting with current core developers, etc. Bu
I know that this is the case for me.
I wouldn’t _dream_ of committing anything (after 10 years or so) without first
consulting with current core developers, etc. But formally being a Python core
dev does give me status with my colleagues, students, children (well, one
only), nephews and nieces,
Hm, unless I misunderstood, MAL's
> Being a core developer of Python is a status
suggests that core devs might want to keep this status since it confers
"status" on their person (it looks good on a resume for sure). And I
wouldn't want to make it any harder for a 3rd party to verify someone's
cla
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 06:43 Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 18 June 2018 at 18:07, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> > Overall, I think that removing repo or bpo permissions should be
> > kept separate from the status itself. It would probably be wise
> > to send around reminders to all core devs who have access
On 18 June 2018 at 18:07, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Overall, I think that removing repo or bpo permissions should be
> kept separate from the status itself. It would probably be wise
> to send around reminders to all core devs who have access and
> have not used their permissions every few year. The
Victor:
please make sure that you contact the developers whos status
you intend to modify prior to doing so. Being a core developer
of Python is a status and not something that should be changed
without consent by the developer in question.
Also note that the dev list log doesn't include all core
24 matches
Mail list logo
