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 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
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 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
Hi,
The result of the vote to to promote Pablo Salingo Salgado as core developer
after one week is positive: I declare that Pablo is now a core developer,
congrats! I will follow the usual process to actually make him a core dev,
and ask him to write a short introduction email to this list.
But I
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 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
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 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,
Not trying to dispute the result (I’d have posted earlier if I was really
concerned), but it sounds like you’ve signed up to mentor someone for three
months. Under normal circumstances, the commit bit comes at the end of
mentorship, not at the start.
Should we promote other mentees as well? I k
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
I think we should give the mentors a choice in this. Victor has chosen to
do it this way for Pablo. I don't know who (if anyone) is mentoring Cheryl.
I think Eric Snow is mentoring Emily (I am too, but my mentoring is not
very hands-on, and we only chat once every 3 weeks at most.)
On Tue, Jun 19,
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
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
> it sounds like you’ve signed up to mentor someone for three months.
Under normal circumstances, the commit bit comes at the end of mentorship,
not at the start.
I am already mentoring him since January, it's not a start.
I recall that I was scared of doing anything when I became a core dev. An
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
