Tres Seaver wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
<skip <at> pobox.com> writes:
Sean> However, I will step up for him and say that I've known him a Sean> decade, and he's very trustworthy. He has been the president (we Sean> call that position Maximum Leader) of our Linux Users Group here Sean> for 5 years or so.
Given that Sean is vouching for him I'm fine with it.
I'm not sure I agree. Of course it could be argued the risk is minimal, but I think it's better if all people go through the same path of proving their motivation and quality of work. And if there's something wrong with that process we'd better address it than give random privileges to people we like :)
I think there is a definite "unpriced externality" to keeping the process barriers high here. I don't belive from conversations at the language summit / PyCon that the community is being overrun with hordes of unworthies clamoring to triage Python bugs: rather the opposite, in fact. It seems to me that backing from an established community member ought to be enough to get a prospective triageur at least provisional roles to do the work, with the caveat that it might be revoked it it didn't turn out well. If it does turn out well, then look to *expand* that user's roles in the community, with a nice helping of public acclaim to go with it.
I am not arguing for "making exceptions for friends" here; rather that the acknowledged issues with inclusiveness / espansion of the developer community require making changes to the rules to encourage more participation.
BTW, language like "prov[ing] their motivation" is itself demotivating, and likely contributes to the status quo ante.
With my PSF hat on I'd like to support Tres here (and, by extension, Sean's proposal). Lowering the barriers of entry is a desirable goal.
If adding people created work for already-busy developers then I'd be against it*, but with Sean offering to mentor his new protege and ensure that he limits his role to triage initially that doesn't seem to be an issue.
Maybe it's time to review the way people "prove their motivation and the quality of their work"?
* I'd be against it, but I'd fight to change the development process so that adding new people *didn't* create work. We should, in my opinion, be looking for a continual influx of new worker bees.