Staff Complaint - Ladyfowl/DRagO

[Kaed]

BYOND Key: Kaedwuff

Staff BYOND Key: Ladyfowl/DRagO

Game ID: N/A

Reason for complaint: I'm not really sure how else to put this delicately, but I have concerns in the staff team's decision to empower Drago as an official developer.  While she certainly seems productive and seems to have some grasp of DM and contributes changes to the server, I question her level of competency being enough to justify giving her control over other other aspects of developer duties, such as reviewing people's PRs.  I certainly don't think she needs to be barred from contributing, since our system of community review does a good job of determining problem with code. 

However, I feel like some of her ideas and reviews suffer from a kind of half-baked feel, as if she did not fully take the time to consider how appropriate they are, or whether they offer any actual solution (in the case of reviews and change requests).  Sometimes, they simply stop working on a PR instead of correcting problems people point out with it, or make suggestions that are not helpful or relevant,  Their PRs and reviews in general sort of leave me with an unpleasant taste in my mouth, as if they are barely above the bar for competency.

These are all traits I would consider acceptable from a regular contributor, but I feel like we should be holding our actual dev team members to a higher standard.  I recently withdrew my own dev application when someone pointed out to me that I need to take some time to learn more before I apply.  I feel like perhaps Drago would also benefit greatly from taking some time to learn more about working with DM and our community, then reapplying later.

Evidence/logs/etc:  I can look up the PRs if you need them, but some things that come to mind immediately:

-The garlic bread PR they made that had garlic bread hurt vampires (just garlic bread itself, not garlic the fruit), which they abandoned after I suggested they move the 'hurts vampires' bit up to the actual garlic

-The PR they made that turned gumball machines into a monster when they get emagged, which was then abandoned when people said she should do something more logical like make it shoot gumballs or coins.

-Their recent review on my mob designation PR where they suggested I use an adjective file without actually reading the contents of it to find out it was inappropriate for use on animal mobs.

-Their unsolicited attempt to remove all ballistic weapons from security

-Their PR that 'nerfs' fuel tank explosions in contrast to the general mood and double dismissals of the related suggestion

-Re-opening the departmental security PR again very shortly after it was closed by LordFowl as it left a bad taste in the community's mouth.

Additional remarks:  I miss Lohikar being a dev

Edited December 18, 2019 by Kaed

[Lady Fowl]

14 minutes ago, Kaed said:

BYOND Key: Kaedwuff

Staff BYOND Key: Ladyfowl/DRagO

Game ID: N/A

Reason for complaint: I'm not really sure how else to put this delicately, but I have concerns in the staff team's decision to empower Drago as an official developer.  While she certainly seems productive and seems to have some grasp of DM and contributes changes to the server, I question her level of competency being enough to justify giving her control over other other aspects of developer duties, such as reviewing people's PRs.  I certainly don't think she needs to be barred from contributing, since our system of community review does a good job of determining problem with code. 

However, I feel like some of her ideas and reviews suffer from a kind of half-baked feel, as if she did not fully take the time to consider how appropriate they are, or whether they offer any actual solution (in the case of reviews and change requests).  Sometimes, they simply stop working on a PR instead of correcting problems people point out with it, or make suggestions that are not helpful or relevant,  Their PRs and reviews in general sort of leave me with an unpleasant taste in my mouth, as if they are barely above the bar for competency.

These are all traits I would consider acceptable from a regular contributor, but I feel like we should be holding our actual dev team members to a higher standard.  I recently withdrew my own dev application when someone pointed out to me that I need to take some time to learn more before I apply.  I feel like perhaps Drago would also benefit greatly from taking some time to learn more about working with DM and our community, then reapplying later.

Evidence/logs/etc:  I can look up the PRs if you need them, but some things that come to mind immediately:

-The garlic bread PR they made that had garlic bread hurt vampires (just garlic bread itself, not garlic the fruit), which they abandoned after I suggested they move the 'hurts vampires' bit up to the actual garlic

-The PR they made that turned gumball machines into a monster when they get emagged, which was then abandoned when people said she should do something more logical like make it shoot gumballs or coins.

-Their recent review on my mob designation PR where they suggested I use an adjective file without actually reading the contents of it to find out it was inappropriate for use on animal mobs.

-Their unsolicited attempt to remove all ballistic weapons from the security

-Their PR that 'nerfs' fuel tank explosions in contrast to the general mood and double dismissals of the related suggestion

-Re-opening the departmental security PR again very shortly after it was closed by LordFowl as it left a bad taste in the community's mouth.

Additional remarks:  I miss Lohikar being a dev

For you to address your application being closed and told you need more experience has no relevance here, and is moreso trying to do a 'gotcha'. A large amount of pr's yes, I did close; There was a reason for them being closed that I disclosed to the staff and dev team, I do not need to explain to you or anybody outside those circles why or why I go absent as it is none of your concern. To address the pr you discussed me reviewing, I disregarded part of my review after a discussion with skull, where he said for this purpose the list method you preformed was fine, however they should not be global lists, I resolved the pr corrections and left feedback with a alternative way you could do this, which you seem to of skipped over or disregarded.

I may of misphrased my edited comment, but to quote it "There is some heavily flawed areas where improvement can make the code more cleaner and easier to view/edit in the future. There is the issue of the lists being global, which should be addressed" Should of been addressed as essentially global lists should not be used for this, I apologize for this but this was at literally 1am my time, so I hope a break could be given for that as we all make mistakes.

To address the individual pr's you addressed.

-The PR they made that turned gumball machines into a monster when they get emagged, which was then abandoned when people said she should do something more logical like make it shoot gumballs or coins.

Gumball machines were removed, so the pr was not relevant anymore

 

-Their recent review on my mob designation PR where they suggested I use an adjective file without actually reading the contents of it to find out it was inappropriate for use on animal mobs.

You misread what I said, I recommended if you are wanting to go this route that you could place these adjectives into txt files in the config, IE naming them like so

After discussing it more with others it was deemed your method would work and this was moreso preference, to which I said the lists should not be global as a global list for this purpose makes no sense.

-Their unsolicited attempt to remove all ballistic weapons from the security

I don't really need to ask to make a pr, for it to be merged I need to get feedback yes, however for a work in progress pr that is not even close to being merged this is not needed nor do I need to ask for permission

 

-Their PR that 'nerfs' fuel tank explosions in contrast to the general mood and double dismissals of the related suggestion

 

I do not need to get permission again to make a PR, it is listed as needing feedback and I posted the PR in the thread @BurgerBB made to get some general feedback, which I just got home so I have not been able to work on it.

 

-Re-opening the departmental security PR again very shortly after it was closed by LordFowl as it left a bad taste in the community's mouth.

 

It was closed because Fowl resigned, Fowl allowed me to take it over if I wanted and I enjoyed the idea as did others. Again, I do not need permission to MAKE a pr, however I need FEEDBACK to get it merged, this being from skull/arrow and from the community.

I believe you are seeing this as something wrong or do not understand most of the circumstances of situations or how the process works, however I have never gone out of my way to purposefully say "Fuck you" to anybody via pr's as this is against my moral code and the point of the dev team, I want everybody to be happy and am constantly open to feedback, to which any of my fellow devs on the team can atest to that I am willing to make changes and willing to work with others, granted they want to work things out and not just say "Me no like".

To end this off, I do apologize for my poor word choice on the PR, I should of explained what I was meaning better and I feel this could of been resolved with you messaging me over this or allowing me to get time to reply to the PR's comment

[DronzTheWolf]

To clarify, I was a bit peeved that the Mk. 43 was changed so heavily, making it a bullpup and giving it a grenade launcher, to make it into a worse Z8 Bulldog. 
I had originally released my own sprites, then Amory picked that up and modified it to be a bit better, and then Geeves picked the actual suggestion up and PR'd it. From there I was mostly disconnected and assumed it was going as expected, some balancing being discussed, and after some time I check the code dungeon and see what it's become. I expressed some concerns that it was getting a ways away from the original suggestion, and eventually they decided it was irrelevant and hopped into Paradox's boat of "Remove Sec ballistics, replace with lasers only." Essentially sealing the fate of the suggestion.

[BurgerBB]

I was pinged here but I don't know where. I read the complaint, but I can't be bothered to read the paragraph post in full they made because I rather use my own words.

They published the PR after contacting me and making some tweaks. They posted it when the thread had a general positive attitude by community members, except for a comment that was deleted by staff that was basically "lol deal with it"

When the PR was made there was a massive wave of negative criticism about the suggestion. It wasn't them seeing the negative criticism and going "fuck it I'll make it anyways" If you read carefully, my suggestion was to just remove the explosion from it outright, while drago is a moderate "it can still explode,. it's just more realistic." which is pretty different from me just telling it to delete the explosion.

Edited December 18, 2019 by BurgerBB

[Lady Fowl]

1 hour ago, DronzTheWolf said:

To clarify, I was a bit peeved that the Mk. 43 was changed so heavily, making it a bullpup and giving it a grenade launcher, to make it into a worse Z8 Bulldog. 
I had originally released my own sprites, then Amory picked that up and modified it to be a bit better, and then Geeves picked the actual suggestion up and PR'd it. From there I was mostly disconnected and assumed it was going as expected, some balancing being discussed, and after some time I check the code dungeon and see what it's become. I expressed some concerns that it was getting a ways away from the original suggestion, and eventually they decided it was irrelevant and hopped into Paradox's boat of "Remove Sec ballistics, replace with lasers only." Essentially sealing the fate of the suggestion.

Will DM you on that.

Edit: Cleared the confusion up

[Kaed]

1 hour ago, DRagO said:

A bunch of defensive stuff.

I'm not here to get into a debate with you over the correctness of your behavior or reviews.  I've made this thread to bring up community and staff consideration on the subject of your viability as a developer at your current skill level.  I've been concerned with your performance specifically for a long time, as have people I speak to on the subject of Aurora code and development, such as Lohikar, who might not be a part of the developer team anymore, but is generally a person whose opinions and knowledge on code I consider worthy of great respect.

At the end of the day though, it's the rest of the current staff team, and to a lesser extent, the community at large, that will determine how this pans out.  To somewhat paraphrase a mirror of your own defense, I don't really need permission to create a staff complaint over my concerns for your performance, nor does it mean that the staff team is required to ask for your resignation just because I made it.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Kaed

[Garnascus]

Please stop posting if you arent involved. 

This is a complaint towards the dev side of things so it will be handled by @Skull132 or @Arrow768

[PoZe]

Quote

Reason for complaint: I'm not really sure how else to put this delicately, but I have concerns in the staff team's decision to empower Drago as an official developer.  While she certainly seems productive and seems to have some grasp of DM and contributes changes to the server, I question her level of competency being enough to justify giving her control over other other aspects of developer duties, such as reviewing people's PRs.  I certainly don't think she needs to be barred from contributing, since our system of community review does a good job of determining problem with code. 

Hello there. I have read over your post, and this paragraph is just quick summary of my reply. I fail to see your points valid, especially in overall picture, I do not see anything major where you can question the level of competency of Drago. The part about having knowledge or experience of DM is not correct. While it would be partially true if you were talking about Drago when they started coding and to the moment of their trial, if you look at Drago's ability to code in DM you will see a noticeable improvement which was seen to go up. It would be concerning and valid if their ability to code has remained the same since they joined the team, but that is just not true.

 

Quote

However, I feel like some of her ideas and reviews suffer from a kind of half-baked feel, as if she did not fully take the time to consider how appropriate they are, or whether they offer any actual solution (in the case of reviews and change requests).  Sometimes, they simply stop working on a PR instead of correcting problems people point out with it, or make suggestions that are not helpful or relevant,  Their PRs and reviews in general sort of leave me with an unpleasant taste in my mouth, as if they are barely above the bar for competency.

There is nothing wrong with creating PR that is "half-baked", as long as it is not a meme PR. There are tons of examples of WIP, PR drafts, and even PRs that are marked for review but they need improvement or finishing. The key point here is that when PR is seen by developers/contributors or even players are incomplete or lacks improvement a feedback to it is required. It is important to look at how the author of PR listens to the feedback, but they can still disagree. Disagreeing with someone is not the issue, it is about how you do it. People have different opinions, and on implementation especially. Maintainers usually are the people whose word is final, but even they have disagreement between each other from time to time.

 

In Drago's specific case I have looked over any recent PRs that were either not finished or received request/suggestion to change something. Their response is appropriate, it was either civilized discussion or they just decided to stop the project. It is okay for a person to stop a project if they do not agree with suggestions or requests, as long as the request/suggestion was fair and they do not do it out of taking it personally or leave it with salty remark or point it out.

 

Personally I have closed PR once where I disagreed with suggestion of another developer and I left a closing comment saying that I personally think that my PR/idea is being stolen by this developer. I got over that issue, I never attacked that developer and they talked to me. Eventually we came to agreement of them implementing it, which is the right way to resolve this issue. I have not observed anything as close as this in Drago's case recently.

 

Quote

I feel like perhaps Drago would also benefit greatly from taking some time to learn more about working with DM and our community, then reapplying later.

That is interesting suggestion about benefit of learning more about DM. I would say there are still lots of developers who will benefit of learning more about DM, even skull has gaps and is being corrected. Now I say that, I do not mean that their DM knowledge is not enough, but Software Development is a field where you need to accept constant growth. Once you stop learning that's when you will stop having creative ideas. I do not agree that Drago has to take time to learn more about our community, since I think they know it very well. Especially being an active and experienced moderator, active developer, former lore developer and wiki maintainer. Drago has taken so many roles in their aurora career, and I do not meant it like since they have role everywhere they are automatically wise. But I mean that they have tapped in each area of our community with entirely different perspectives of different teams, that their experience and knowledge of the community is definitely greater than any staff on developer's team except for Alberyk.

 

Quote

-The garlic bread PR they made that had garlic bread hurt vampires (just garlic bread itself, not garlic the fruit), which they abandoned after I suggested they move the 'hurts vampires' bit up to the actual garlic

-The PR they made that turned gumball machines into a monster when they get emagged, which was then abandoned when people said she should do something more logical like make it shoot gumballs or coins.

-Their recent review on my mob designation PR where they suggested I use an adjective file without actually reading the contents of it to find out it was inappropriate for use on animal mobs.

-Their unsolicited attempt to remove all ballistic weapons from security

-Their PR that 'nerfs' fuel tank explosions in contrast to the general mood and double dismissals of the related suggestion

-Re-opening the departmental security PR again very shortly after it was closed by LordFowl as it left a bad taste in the community's mouth.

Additional remarks:  I miss Lohikar being a dev

I know that lots of Drago's PRs were closed because they were not able to actively maintain them up to date with master. Lots of their PRs had merge conflicts later on which are pain in the ass to solve and sometimes is not worth the time.

1. I carefully looked at Garlic PR. Arrow only issue with it was the sprite. Your suggestion was reasonable, but again it is author's privilege to disagree with anyone as long as they explain why. Drago did explain what is their opinion, and nobody has replied to their explanation since. 
2. You are referring to vermin PR? That PR has different issues. Drago's review point out that your usage of global name lists(as opposed to local) is against our standards, unless it is absolutely required and used by different systems of code that cannot pass the list around easily. That was a valid point, their suggestion was for you to use existing configuration file of adjectives is also a good point. You replied with a partially good point. I say partially because it make sense that you want to have animal/class specific list of adjectives that cannot be easily put together into single file. Putting them into individual file would be another alternative, but it would not make sense if it scales up. In this case you would want to use local lists.
3. I do not see how having PR open for it is wrong. It is stale and can be closed, true. But that is not an issue I think at all, and does not work in your argument.
4. I honestly do not see issue here, there was lots of different opinions on whether that PR should be in or not. It was absolutely said by maintainers that we will test merge it and potentially merge it to just try out something new. We can always revert anything. Drago making that PR was not against dev team descriptor, nor by a whole or even a majority of community since opinions were again split almost 50%

 

Additional:

Quote

I've been concerned with your performance specifically for a long time, as have people I speak to on the subject of Aurora code and development, such as Lohikar, who might not be a part of the developer team anymore, but is generally a person whose opinions and knowledge on code I consider worthy of great respect.

Just because Lohikar thinks about something in a certain way does not mean it is right or true

Edited December 18, 2019 by PoZe

[Lohikar]

21 minutes ago, PoZe said:

First of all, why did you mention Lohikar's name when they clearly stated that they do not want to get involved in this. Just because Lohikar thinks about something in a certain way does not mean it is right or true

I said this after I was mentioned, not in response to Kaed, and not in a server Kaed is in. Please don't bring it up.

[PoZe]

1 minute ago, Lohikar said:

I said this after I was mentioned, not in response to Kaed, and not in a server Kaed is in. Please don't bring it up.

I have edited my message. Sorry, I was under the impression that it how I thought it is.

[Kaed]

1 hour ago, PoZe said:

A bunch of stuff.

 

Additional:

Just because Lohikar thinks about something in a certain way does not mean it is right or true

Okay.  If that's how you feel.

But, additionally, a pointless quotation to support my side:

What's even the point of this discussion if everything boils down to 'my opinions are more valid than your and your associates?'.  If you think that her improvements over the last wherever retroactively justify her position, than the best I can do is offer examples of code they made that other people (since I'm badman and invalid) thought looked bad.  And that can simply be dismissed with "it's good enough for us though," rendering the entire process pointless.

I will grant you that you present a much more reasoned set of arguments than the last few vitriolic ad hominem rebuttals (now deleted by garn) that amounted to 'how dare u criticize someone when ur also not good'.  Perhaps her work has improved significantly since she started work as a dev, but that still raises the question, for me, of why she was invited to the dev team in the first place when her early efforts were so lackluster. They could have made those same improvements as a regular non-staff contributor, and still continue to.  She did not, and still doesn't, need to be on the dev team to improve.

Looking back at her original app and the work she presented at the time, where half of the PRs she showed as her work were closed before being finished, many of them had glaring code issues, and one of them even contained copyright infringement, I frankly don't understand why they were even accepted at that stage.  Even at the time everyone seemed largely cautious or neutral at best, save for Moondancer's... strangely out of place adoring recommendation... (is there an opposite of to that 'BEC' thing they cited me acting under? ?).

Anyway.  Point is, I don't really have an argument to make here other than 'I disagree with your relaxed standards'.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Kaed

[PoZe]

23 minutes ago, Kaed said:

Okay.  If that's how you feel.

But, additionally, a pointless quotation to support my side:

So you took my additional side note as my main point and dismissed it just because of it? And I would agree with you, my personal opinion does not mean that Drago should or should not remain on dev team. But it is not appropriate to dismiss the main points of my reply and just toss them out, that just makes me think you are not serious about what I have to say about this.

 

Quote

Looking back at her original app and the work she presented at the time, where half of the PRs she showed as her work were closed before being finished, many of them had glaring code issues, and one of them even contained copyright infringement, I frankly don't understand why they were even accepted at that stage.  Even at the time everyone seemed largely cautious or neutral at best, save for Moondancer's... strangely out of place adoring recommendation... (is there an opposite of to that 'BEC' thing they cited me acting under? ?).

That is true, at the time of Drago's application their performance was not satisfactory for them to get on the team like most other developers did. There was lots of discussions about it, I was participating too. Me and majority of developers agreed to give Drago a chance with the requirement that they will work on improving their skills and learning more. Another thing was also Drago's trial, it was meant to show how much Drago can grow if they are asked in in DM skills and general. At the end of trial there was a discussion and whole team accepted Drago. It was not a single person: Skull or me or MoonDance or Karolis or anyone else. Could it have been a wrong decision at the time? That depends on perspective, I would say ask the same people who voted on it and see if their opinion has changed. My opinion is that we did the right decision as we have a valuable developer on on our team. But that is again my personal opinion.

 

Quote

I will grant you that you present a much more reasoned set of arguments than the last few vitriolic ad hominem rebuttals (now deleted by garn) that amounted to 'how dare u criticize someone when ur also not good'.  Perhaps her work has improved significantly since she started work as a dev, but that still raises the question, for me, of why she was invited to the dev team in the first place when her early efforts were so lackluster. They could have made those same improvements as a regular non-staff contributor, and still continue to.  She did not, and still doesn't, need to be on the dev team to improve.

 I am confused what "few vitriolic ad hominem rebuttals" is referring to? Please explain to me.  The explanation of why she was accepted is a given in paragraph above. As to "Why can't we just demote her, since she can improve as contributor too" can be applied to any person. We can let other developers go to improve, we can let Skull drop as host to let Skull improve of how they host server. But I do not see a need to drop Drago for them to improve their skill, as in my personal opinion their coding skills meet development team requirements.

 

The last quote I replied to here makes me ask if this is in any way related to development team hesitant/opposed to accepting you as developer? As I was trying to not assume as much as possible, the pattern of complaint made me raise this question.

 

Edit: I am apologizing for grammar and duplicated words, I am physically and mentally exhausted from the day as I wrote this. But I wanted to write it now, because most of my thoughts might go away and get lost since I will be very busy at work this week.

Edited December 18, 2019 by PoZe

[Skull132]

7 minutes ago, PoZe said:

I am confused what "few vitriolic ad hominem rebuttals" is referring to? Please explain to me.

A dumb post was hidden that was up for a few hours prior.

[Arrow768]

I do not appreciate being quoted out of context. 

The quote that was posted refers to a alleged claim "that its not possible to speed up the spawn menu by using vuejs because it is using browse()"

In addition, I do not see how Lohikar is involved in this. 

[Lady Fowl]

43 minutes ago, Kaed said:

Okay.  If that's how you feel.

But, additionally, a pointless quotation to support my side:

What's even the point of this discussion if everything boils down to 'my opinions are more valid than your and your associates?'.  If you think that her improvements over the last wherever retroactively justify her position, than the best I can do is offer examples of code they made that other people (since I'm badman and invalid) thought looked bad.  And that can simply be dismissed with "it's good enough for us though," rendering the entire process pointless.

I will grant you that you present a much more reasoned set of arguments than the last few vitriolic ad hominem rebuttals (now deleted by garn) that amounted to 'how dare u criticize someone when ur also not good'.  Perhaps her work has improved significantly since she started work as a dev, but that still raises the question, for me, of why she was invited to the dev team in the first place when her early efforts were so lackluster. They could have made those same improvements as a regular non-staff contributor, and still continue to.  She did not, and still doesn't, need to be on the dev team to improve.

Looking back at her original app and the work she presented at the time, where half of the PRs she showed as her work were closed before being finished, many of them had glaring code issues, and one of them even contained copyright infringement, I frankly don't understand why they were even accepted at that stage.  Even at the time everyone seemed largely cautious or neutral at best, save for Moondancer's... strangely out of place adoring recommendation... (is there an opposite of to that 'BEC' thing they cited me acting under? ?).

Anyway.  Point is, I don't really have an argument to make here other than 'I disagree with your relaxed standards'.

To keep this short in response, yeah I am not the best developer. I'm not, poze isn't, moon isn't and neither is anybody else on the developer team a "good developer" as if you think in this manner you become stubborn and unwilling to learn. The difference from then to now is that I was willing to accept feedback from others and was willing to take time to learn how to do something instead of arguing that my way is the best way, and through this I was able to grow in my skills to a level that I can only thank the wonderful people who taught me and who helped mentor me into being able to be a part of the development team that I cherish and enjoy. To post my app and poke fun at early pr's that I made is generally trying to de-mean and belittle people, when infact I see those pr's for how fucking shitty they were and think "Wow, if I had not messed up like that I would of never learned to improve." A lot of them were very poor in the beginning and honestly were a creative outlet to learn in a way that I can find fun and engaging and I cherish those moments of learning as I made incredible friends along the way.

I am not a good dev or a perfect dev, but neither is anybody on the developer team, and when you call yourself a best developer ever, that is your greatest downfall as you become unable and un-willing to accept any new teaching, so to really dig up my developer app from way back then and quote pr's from long ago as a reason to remove me from the developer team is really trying to pull a strawman at this point. I have made a attempt to explain the issue you addressed and you shorted it down to "A bunch of defensive stuff" which is not really respectful when trying to actually be productive in a discussion.

[Kaed]

1 hour ago, DRagO said:

To keep this short in response, yeah I am not the best developer. I'm not, poze isn't, moon isn't and neither is anybody else on the developer team a "good developer" as if you think in this manner you become stubborn and unwilling to learn. The difference from then to now is that I was willing to accept feedback from others and was willing to take time to learn how to do something instead of arguing that my way is the best way, and through this I was able to grow in my skills to a level that I can only thank the wonderful people who taught me and who helped mentor me into being able to be a part of the development team that I cherish and enjoy. To post my app and poke fun at early pr's that I made is generally trying to de-mean and belittle people, when infact I see those pr's for how fucking shitty they were and think "Wow, if I had not messed up like that I would of never learned to improve." A lot of them were very poor in the beginning and honestly were a creative outlet to learn in a way that I can find fun and engaging and I cherish those moments of learning as I made incredible friends along the way.

I am not a good dev or a perfect dev, but neither is anybody on the developer team, and when you call yourself a best developer ever, that is your greatest downfall as you become unable and un-willing to accept any new teaching, so to really dig up my developer app from way back then and quote pr's from long ago as a reason to remove me from the developer team is really trying to pull a strawman at this point. I have made a attempt to explain the issue you addressed and you shorted it down to "A bunch of defensive stuff" which is not really respectful when trying to actually be productive in a discussion.

That's reasonable I suppose.

And I mostly condense/summarize the stuff in the quotation to reduce the space my post is taking up, not like, to directly dismiss the argument there. It bugs me to include someone's entire multi paragraph post inside mine.

[Arrow768]

So to sum up the complaint: You don't think Drwago is good enough to be a developer on the staff team?

@Kaed

[Kaed]

1 hour ago, Arrow768 said:

So to sum up the complaint: You don't think Drwago is good enough to be a developer on the staff team?

@Kaed

That was the sum of the original complaint, as meandering as it was, yes.  I would have phrased it as 'not skilled enough', but they amount to the same thing.

[Lady Fowl]

Any resolution to this? Because if the foundation of the complaint is essentially "I do not feel you are good enough." then that is hardly a complaint and is just the opinion of one person.

[Arrow768]

Sorry, for the time it took to get back to that topic.

Quote

I question her level of competency being enough to justify giving her control over other other aspects of developer duties, such as reviewing people's PRs.
I certainly don't think she needs to be barred from contributing, since our system of community review does a good job of determining problem with code. 

Ultimately DM knowledge is not the only deciding factor in a developer application.
Another important factor is "social compatibility" with the current team and the willingness to learn.

Therefore we are willing to accept people who might not have "great" knowledge of DM if they show the willingness to learn and the development team (as a whole) is willing to work with them.
In addition we (the headdevs) generally assign projects to people that allow them to learn various aspects of our codebase.
That has happened with drago during and after her developer trial and she has shown a good improvement in her DM skills since then.

Regarding the reviews:
All pull requests (with the exception of bugfixes) require at least two Reviews and have a waiting period of 3 days.
This ensures that more than one person reviews a PR and catches potential issues with the code and the reviews.
This system applies to both developer and contributor PRs.
Once a PR is in "awaiting merge" maintainer is needed to merge a pull request.
The only difference between developer and contributor reviews is that at least one approving developer review is required for a PR to reach the "awaiting merge" state.

In addition, if you have any concerns with a review given, you can contact the reviewer and/or the maintainers to clear up any questions you might have regarding it / correct it if needed.
(One example, where she gave a review which she later amended is not sufficient to warrant a removal from the dev team)

After a discussion with the rest of the development team, we do not see sufficient reason to remove her from the development team at this time.

 

I would also like to note a few things:

• A staff complaint is not exactly appropriate to address concerns you might have about the performance of a staff member.
  • "For complaints against members of the staff team. Disagree with a judgement? Conduct? An action they've done? Post it here."
  • If you have issues with a decision they made or their conduct in their capacity as a developer, then a staff complaint would be appropriate.
    For other cases it would be better to inform a headev/maintainer
  • We (headdevs) are aware of the difference in skill and activity between the developers.
• I care very little about the concerns "people you have talked to" have regarding the performance of someone on the development team.
  • If they wish to express those concerns, they can approach a headdev/maintainer.
• We do not prevent or punish anyone, including developers, from creating PRs that are controversial or not fully thought out.
  • We make use of draft PRs and the WIP flag (although the WIP flag should at some point be abandoned in favor of the draft PRs)
  • In the worst case the PR is closed without being merged and the creator of the PR wasted their time on it.
  • The only thing that would currently get you a repo ban is using github features in bad faith (which only happened 3 times so far, with two bans lifted)

Unless there are further comments I´ll close that complaint in 24h