1 |
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 11/06/2016 10:55 PM, Dean Stephens wrote: |
5 |
> > On 11/06/16 21:32, Alec Warner wrote: |
6 |
> >> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo |
7 |
> >> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer) |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> > Which is a problem in exactly what way? What actual practical benefit is |
10 |
> > being sought by means of this proposal? |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The split in the pool of users/voters makes it hard to act as one unit. |
14 |
> One way of thinking about this change would be to have the Foundation as |
15 |
> the top level project (with ALL members), with council just beneath |
16 |
> (with DEV memebrs). |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
To be clear, I do want more Gentoo developers as foundation members; but |
20 |
this proposal is not that. |
21 |
|
22 |
I'm also not sold on the metastructure you hint at here. |
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
> |
26 |
> >> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only |
27 |
> have 1 |
28 |
> >> contributor type. |
29 |
> >> |
30 |
> >> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename to the |
31 |
> >> contributor quiz.) |
32 |
> >> |
33 |
> > Which is already a a subset of the developer quiz, with the exception of |
34 |
> > two questions that are unique to the staff quiz. If you want devs to be |
35 |
> > required to describe what ~ARCH is and whether users need to know what |
36 |
> > EAPI is, there are less labor intensive ways of achieving that goal. |
37 |
> > Also, are you seriously proposing that anyone who submits a patch or |
38 |
> > files a bug or helps other users in any of the various support channels |
39 |
> > must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"? |
40 |
> > |
41 |
> |
42 |
> They contribute but are not recognized, this would allow for easier |
43 |
> recognition. The quiz may need amending. |
44 |
> |
45 |
|
46 |
I want to avoid two classes of developers; "real" developers who contribute |
47 |
via the ebuild repository and "everyone else" and I suspect having |
48 |
literally two classes of developer (developer and staff) contributes to |
49 |
this. |
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
> |
53 |
> >> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membership |
54 |
> is |
55 |
> >> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to offer |
56 |
> >> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributor. |
57 |
> >> |
58 |
> > Which is the status quo, just with the proposed renaming. |
59 |
> > |
60 |
> |
61 |
> As I see it, yes. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> >> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still |
64 |
> need |
65 |
> >> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 day |
66 |
> >> period.) |
67 |
> >> |
68 |
> > So, again, effectively the status quo. |
69 |
> |
70 |
> Again, yes |
71 |
> |
72 |
> >> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repository |
73 |
> >> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the ebuild |
74 |
> >> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebuild |
75 |
> >> groups. |
76 |
> >> |
77 |
> > And, yet again, the status quo. |
78 |
> > |
79 |
> |
80 |
> Yes |
81 |
> |
82 |
> >> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors. |
83 |
> >> |
84 |
> > Why "rebrand" anyone? |
85 |
> > |
86 |
> |
87 |
> It's my opinion that while not strictly needed it could be helpful in |
88 |
> that it forms a strong delineation between what was and what is. |
89 |
> |
90 |
> >> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust |
91 |
> >> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement. |
92 |
> >> |
93 |
> > Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff quiz |
94 |
> > questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to |
95 |
> > describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you introduce |
96 |
> > another round of quiz taking for new ebuild developers when taking too |
97 |
> > much time to get through the quizzes is already probably the most |
98 |
> > commonly complained about part of recruiting new ebuild developers. |
99 |
> |
100 |
> Personally I don't think it'd only be comrel that'd be tasked with this. |
101 |
> My personal suggestion is for more of a working group, with members of |
102 |
> council foundation and comrel to work on this. As far as the quiz |
103 |
> updates go, I feel this is more of a formal dividing of the quiz than |
104 |
> adding to it. |
105 |
> |
106 |
> >> -A |
107 |
> >> |
108 |
> > |
109 |
> > |
110 |
> |
111 |
> -- |
112 |
> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
113 |
> |
114 |
> |