844829 - Commit Access (Level 1) for Michael de Boer

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(mozilla.org :: Repository Account Requests, task)

Description

[Mike de Boer [:mikedeboer]]

Attachment: Public key, email address used herein is <[e-mail]>

New member of the Firefox Desktop team!

Justin Dolske (:dolske) can vouch for me, or Eddy Bruel (:ejpbruel)

Comment 1

[Eddy Bruel [:ejpbruel]]

I'm not sure if I'm eligible to vouch for L3, but if so, I'll vouch for Mike.

Comment 2

[Josh Matthews [:jdm]]

Jumping straight to L3 is unusual for new community members. Do you any history with the team before this?

Comment 3

[Mike de Boer [:mikedeboer]]

Hi Josh, Justin asked me to request L3 right away... could you point your question(s) to him?

I sent the committers agreement to Shannon, so we'll have to wait for her answer as well.

Comment 4

[[e-mail]]

I have received the form.

Comment 5

[Josh Matthews [:jdm]]

Dolske, could you comment on why L3 is appropriate here?

Comment 6

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

v=me

He's going to be working on Firefox full-time, and it's annoying to do L1 and then just immediately jump through hoops again to do L3. See bug 828523 / 829846. We shouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot with policy.

Comment 7

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

Over to server ops.

Comment 8

[Josh Matthews [:jdm]]

With all due respect, the bug combo you linked doesn't make me feel any better about this. That's definitely sidestepping the intent of the policy that's been in place until now.

Comment 9

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

(In reply to Josh Matthews [:jdm] from comment #8)
> With all due respect, the bug combo you linked doesn't make me feel any
> better about this. That's definitely sidestepping the intent of the policy
> that's been in place until now.

+1

Comment 10

[Justin Dow [:jabba]]

Changing assignee back until we get proper approval.

Comment 11

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

To be clear, all the nominal requirements have been met for L3 access here.  But skipping straight to L3 for someone new is highly unusual.  Full commit access is typically granted after some time at L1 while people learn the rules, etc.  Full commit access on hire is something we've consciously avoided for a long time, and we're about to do it here (and apparently already did it in Bug 828523 ...)

Comment 12

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

Back to server ops, let's just do Level 1 for now.

I could _swear_ we already had this argument in another bug. But I don't see it in any previous account request bugs I'm CC'd on, and a couple other people don't remember it either. So my brain is probably just mixing together a few related threads from previous policy revisions (the sr-needed lolerskates) and security access. :/

Specifically, there is a point that fast L3 access is not just an unconsidered case of employees getting a free perk. But rather recognition that they've made it through the microscope of the interview process, are being embedded in a team of other developers, will be spending a large fraction of their upcoming waking hours working on Mozilla, and have significantly more to lose if they won't adhere to the rules.

But I also appreciate that's tricky to balance against "appearances," as well as the social benefits of keeping the playing field as level as possible for contributors. And it's clearly not as settled an issue as I had thought it was. :)

Comment 13

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

We had a spirited debate about commit access for Bhavana, but that was about who could vouch, not what level was appropriate.

Let's proceed with L1.

Comment 14

[Michael Burns [:mburns]]

+ldap, +sshkey, +scm_level_1, +hg.

Comment 15

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Dolske: this story is one I often return to as part of this discussion:
http://blog.gerv.net/2011/12/a-level-playing-field/

Do you think we need a more concrete policy on this (either "actually, it's fine", or "minimum wait X weeks", or something like that)?

Gerv

Comment 16

[Mike de Boer [:mikedeboer]]

Michael, thanks for granting me repo access.

Gervase: I am experiencing this for the first time and want to say up front; I am fully aware of the scale of which we try to operate a code base and community at Mozilla.
However, I would like you to rethink the context of your article. Not because it's off-topic, but because it's describes an opinion based on assumptions of what would or would not have happened if access were to be granted in an organization that dealt with collaborators in a different time, place and versioning system.

It's not about fair vs. unfair, right vs. wrong, but more about striking a balance within a mixed ecosystem where full time, paid, employees try to be effective/ productive and casual contributors at the other end - with a fantastic blend of people in between. I do feel that a healthy discussion on this topic would be a good thing.

Again, I'm very happy to have L1 access, now let's see how productive I can get with that.

Comment 17

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Mike: it's not an article, it's a quotation from a respected book about how to run an open source software project by a guy called Karl Fogel. It is obviously not supposed to be a definitive discussion ender, but I use it as a good explanation of why I think it's important that commit access is not an automatic right of employment. That is, I agree with his reasoning in the final paragraph.

Gerv