1 |
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:46:01PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote: |
2 |
> The recruiting information seems strange and unnecessarily structured. |
3 |
> It all seems to be written for people who are not developers. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> The Contributions phase mentions a lot of undefined titles, |
6 |
> "Operational Manager", "Full-time Developer", "Part-time Developer". |
7 |
> There's a table that shows the number of contributions/time for a |
8 |
> developer, but what do these roles actually mean? Who/what is an |
9 |
> "Operational Manager"? |
10 |
|
11 |
That's "old school" and is indeed something that we ought to improve in the |
12 |
description. |
13 |
|
14 |
> > ... to inform the contributor about the time-consuming position and pressure the application involves. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Come on. What is this? I don't think I remember getting paid as a |
17 |
> Gentoo developer. This nonsense about time commitments and pressure is |
18 |
> pretentious. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> It seems to me that the steps for joining the Docs team for a current |
21 |
> developer should be much more clearly stated. |
22 |
|
23 |
Any suggestion here? It isn't difficult to update the policy to be more |
24 |
real-life like (my own immediate suggestion would be to drop the "numbered" |
25 |
commit / bug requirement and instead use a regular mentoring role, and |
26 |
putting the responsibility of acknowledging in the mentor's lap) but we |
27 |
might even go beyond just "updating" the policy. |
28 |
|
29 |
Let's take a fresh look and see ;-) |
30 |
|
31 |
Wkr, |
32 |
Sven Vermeulen |