1 |
On Monday 05 April 2010 21:51:34 Nathan Zachary wrote: |
2 |
> On 05/04/10 11:07, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:50:49AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote: |
4 |
> >> Just replying randomly. |
5 |
> >> |
6 |
> >> On 05.04.2010 04:33, Tobias Heinlein wrote: |
7 |
> >>> I think this is a good starting point to get rid of the "some important |
8 |
> >>> questions are too hard to answer" dilemma that can be implemented |
9 |
> >>> relatively fast. On top of that I like Sebastian's idea to order the |
10 |
> >>> quizzes by difficulty -- this means just ordering by the categories I |
11 |
> >>> just mentioned would be sufficient: 1 first, then 2, then 3. |
12 |
> >> |
13 |
> >> I am not against this idea but frankly, I do not understand what is so |
14 |
> >> demotivating about the ebuild quiz. If you get demotivated because of a |
15 |
> >> single exam, perhaps the problem is with the motivation and not with the |
16 |
> >> exam itself. I took the published quiz just for the fun of it and to |
17 |
> >> see where I missed. It is not that long. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > Agreed... |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > I've been following this discussion with mixed feelings. When we |
22 |
> > originally began using the quiz system the idea was simply to try |
23 |
> > to force new developers to RTFM -- and I was not such a fan of the |
24 |
> > entire concept (as I recall, the quizzes were a "suggestion" from |
25 |
> > Daniel). |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > As it turns out, the quiz system has repeatedly proven itself useful |
28 |
> > in another way: developers who whine/bitch/moan and are hesitant to |
29 |
> > even attempt to complete the quizzes often turn out to be bitchy, |
30 |
> > unmotivated, or unpleasant developers. I don't want to name any names, |
31 |
> > but I've seen this often. |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > IMO, those "boring" "too much like high school" quizzes serve one |
34 |
> > extremely valuable function: finding out up front who's a team player |
35 |
> > (or at least willing to do something mildly unpleasant for the |
36 |
> > Greater Good) |
37 |
> > |
38 |
> > If that's causing potential devs to drop out... perhaps the system is |
39 |
> > working as it should? :) |
40 |
> |
41 |
> My problem with the quizzes is not that they have to be done, but rather |
42 |
> the way they are structured. I have read through the dev manual (which |
43 |
> is excellent in explaining some things, and a little rough in others), |
44 |
> but it would be much more enlightening to me to work on creating ebuilds |
45 |
> while working one-on-one with a mentor. For instance, in a recent |
46 |
> ebuild I wrote, the application installed successfully but yielded |
47 |
> sandbox errors. By jumping on IRC and chatting with a few people, I |
48 |
> readily found a solution to that problem. Later, it was brought to my |
49 |
> attention that there were other problems with the ebuild. I would have |
50 |
> never known about these issues solely from the information presented in |
51 |
> the devmanual. Therefore, I think the most valuable aspect of the |
52 |
> recruitment process is "hands-on" time with ebuilds, commits, et cetera |
53 |
> WHILE working with a mentor. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> --Zach |
56 |
This is why it is good to train "wanna-be" developers in our overlays. |
57 |
Studying and blindly answering the quizzes is not enough. They have to work on |
58 |
actuall ebuilds, dealing with as many eclasses as possible and handle all kind |
59 |
of bugs in our bugzilla. In other words, recruitment must not be one- |
60 |
dimensional but it has to cover all aspects of gentoo development |
61 |
-- |
62 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
63 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
64 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |