On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 12:45 +0000, Duncan wrote: > Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> posted > 200905081342.17562.hwoar...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Fri, 08 May > 2009 13:42:13 +0300: > > > On Friday 08 May 2009 12:19:28 Duncan wrote: > >> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> posted pan.2009.05.06.17.25...@cox.net, > >>[..] If a potential recruit isn't interested in IRC, > >> Gentoo isn't interested in them as developers." > >> > >> Which, I suppose, is good to know, agree or not. > > > Ok now you are overreacting. Joining IRC 2 times in your life ( just > > for the review/recruit process ) is not that hard. > > <Sigh. My intent was to put it to bed.> > > If it's trivial enough that it's overreaction to refuse to join IRC twice > in one's life (which it should be noted, to my knowledge anyway, no one > has actually refused), then certainly, by that same mark of triviality, > it's overreaction to require it, as well. Otherwise, if it wasn't simply > triviality, it wouldn't be overreaction, but misreaction. > > But no matter, the practical fact of the matter is that for someone who > would otherwise not do IRC, it's just one more hurdle in the process. > Whether it's useful or not, trivial or vital, no longer matters, it's > defined by the gatekeepers as a requirement, therefore, by said > definition, it is a requirement. > Well, you could always do it over the phone. :)
> It's good to know the requirements, including this one. Which is what I > was asking in the original post, is it or isn't it. Apparently, it is, > and anyone intending to become a developer can now deal with it as such. > -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmc...@gentoo.org> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
