[Python-Dev] Enhanced tracker privileges for dangerjim to do triage.

[exarkun at twistedmatrix.com]

On 25 Apr, 11:18 pm, steve at holdenweb.com wrote:
>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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't overlook this part of Antoine's post.
>>>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"?

Sounds good.  Why is the barrier for this permission any higher than 
someone asking for it?  Is there really a need to protect against 
contributors with malicious intent?

I think there should be a page on python.org that says all contributors 
are welcome, and one way to become a contributor is to wrangle the issue 
tracker, and explains what this involves (I don't really have any idea, 
actually; I assume it's things like setting the owner of new tickets to 
someone who might actually fix it, things that would happen 
automatically if roundup had the right information), and then anyone who 
steps up gets the necessary access.

Jean-Paul
>regards
>Steve
>
>* 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.
>--
>Steve Holden           +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119