Fedora Developer Ranking System v1

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 28.02.2007 17:50, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 07:51 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 27.02.2007 01:40, Warren Togami wrote:
>>> ==================================================
>>> = Strawman of Fedora Developer Ranking System v1 =
>>> ==================================================
>>> This concept document contains only *IDEAS* of why we would want a
>>> ranking system, and how a ranking system might be useful.  Below are
>>> only examples.  Please add your ideas to this thread.
>>> [...]
>> As two other (red hat) people said "overkill" and "Overly complex" I'd 
>> like to say the opposite: I like the direction, but would like to see
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00764.html
>> integrated. Sure, maybe some other details need to be adjusted, but this 
>> scheme might meld a lot to get new people involved and growing up in the 
>> project. And that's hardly needed and the best for the project.
>>
>> Even if the system is a bit more complex than what we have now -- it 
>> lowers the bar (that's quite high ATM) to get involved into Fedora, and 
>> that's important to get new people in. It's thus a step into the right 
>> direction.
> I think the specific proposal is too complex.  (It _is_ a strawman,
> after all!)   But I like the idea of doing something like this.

Then I think we are mostly on the same side ;-)

>  The
> incentives are nice, but I'm more interested in allowing people to
> choose their level of participation in a particular part of the project.
> For example, there are a large number of packages that I care about, but
> I don't need to own.  I just want to be informed when there are changes.
> Or if someone is doing translations for a particular package, they
> should be able to watch that package for changes and jump in when that
> happens.  As near as I can tell that's not easy right now.  Some
> examples of the kinds of things that I'm talking about:
> 
> o Watcher - "I care about this package."

A "watcher" will be possible with the accounts system and would requires 
no rank afaics.

> o Developer - "I should be consulted when there are major changes to
> this package."

Not sure where that matches in. Probably a co-maintainer. It seems I 
fail to see the difference between Developer and Hacker state a bit.

> o Owner - "I am accountable for changes in this package.  The buck stops
> here."

That the primary owner afaics, defined in the accounts system

> o Hacker - "I can make changes to this package."

That the co-maintainer afaics, also defined via the accounts system.

I'm wondering if we are mixing up "Relationship to a package" and 
"status ow a contributor in the project" here.

CU
thl