On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 05:22:37PM -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> Thanks for the draft! From a quick run-through of the patch (much
> obliged for that, thanks), it seems pretty good.
> The major differences to the original doc are:
> 1. Doing away with the Strategic/Operational lead split. We haven't
> had two people doing those jobs in 5 years, anyway.
Yup, most - if not all - other projects are based on a project lead and lots
of minions, so this was a fairly obvious change imo.
> 2. Translation project leads and "official" language status. Any
> comments as to the changes here?
Sure. I wanted to make it a bit less formal without lowering the
requirements. Now, the document sais that a language should be backed up by
a translation team where at least one member (the translation project lead)
has commit access. If this isn't the case, then it is an "unsupported" language
where the documents are still published, but not linked.
> 3. Join-up process. No formal "X number of contributions per period
> Y." Works well enough for me, but then "how much does this potential
> recruit actually do for us" becomes subjective hand-waving. We would
> need a new metric to determine commitment over time. Ideas?
I'm not sure we need one. Imo, the GDP project lead decides when phase 2
starts (and as such when a mentor is assigned). From then onwards, it is the
mentor who is in charge of defining when the recruitment can be started.
If we need a more objective metric to start with, I'd rather do it on
timeframe ("... sufficient document changes over a term of at least 4
months"), which holds twice then (first and second phase).
After all, developers that have been less or inactive for some time are
slated to be retired anyhow, either fully (from the Gentoo project) or from
the GDP (removal of the GDP page and perhaps cvsdoc commit rights).