On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:54:44AM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM +0000 or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > > > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? > > > > read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ... > > If I'm understanding it correctly, the concern was that by giving folks > "real" gentoo.org addresses if they were "only" doing arch testing, there > would be no incentive for them to contribute any more than that.
not really ... more like handing out @gentoo.org addresses to people was becoming a gimmick. i'm quite proud to have a @gentoo.org e-mail and dont really like the idea of trivializing it. > * There are a lot of Gentoo devs right now with full gentoo.org addresses > who don't do squat for this project, so exactly what bar are we holding > these arch testers to? this is why we have been retiring people. if a Gentoo dev is useless, then lets go with iggy's GLEP and vote the worthless cruft off the island. being a 'full dev' implies you can be held accountable and are required to fulfill a significant amount of responsibility. AT's dont generally want that level of commitment. i'm not saying that what they contribute is meaningless (they have a useful role in the Gentoo project), just that i'd like to think that i, and other 'full devs', take it to the next level. uNF -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
