Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] Review of Documentation Policy
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:22:40
Message-Id: 20110819172215.GA14579@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-doc] Review of Documentation Policy by Matt Turner
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:46:01PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> The recruiting information seems strange and unnecessarily structured. > It all seems to be written for people who are not developers. > > The Contributions phase mentions a lot of undefined titles, > "Operational Manager", "Full-time Developer", "Part-time Developer". > There's a table that shows the number of contributions/time for a > developer, but what do these roles actually mean? Who/what is an > "Operational Manager"?
That's "old school" and is indeed something that we ought to improve in the description.
> > ... to inform the contributor about the time-consuming position and pressure the application involves. > > Come on. What is this? I don't think I remember getting paid as a > Gentoo developer. This nonsense about time commitments and pressure is > pretentious. > > It seems to me that the steps for joining the Docs team for a current > developer should be much more clearly stated.
Any suggestion here? It isn't difficult to update the policy to be more real-life like (my own immediate suggestion would be to drop the "numbered" commit / bug requirement and instead use a regular mentoring role, and putting the responsibility of acknowledging in the mentor's lap) but we might even go beyond just "updating" the policy. Let's take a fresh look and see ;-) Wkr, Sven Vermeulen

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-doc] Review of Documentation Policy Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>