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
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

Replies

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