| 1 |
On 11/07/16 00:03, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/11/16 04:55, Dean Stephens wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/06/16 21:32, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo |
| 5 |
>>> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer) |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>> Which is a problem in exactly what way? What actual practical benefit is |
| 8 |
>> being sought by means of this proposal? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>>> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have 1 |
| 11 |
>>> contributor type. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename to the |
| 14 |
>>> contributor quiz.) |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>> Which is already a a subset of the developer quiz, with the exception of |
| 17 |
>> two questions that are unique to the staff quiz. If you want devs to be |
| 18 |
>> required to describe what ~ARCH is and whether users need to know what |
| 19 |
>> EAPI is, there are less labor intensive ways of achieving that goal. |
| 20 |
>> Also, are you seriously proposing that anyone who submits a patch or |
| 21 |
>> files a bug or helps other users in any of the various support channels |
| 22 |
>> must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"? |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>>> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membership is |
| 25 |
>>> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to offer |
| 26 |
>>> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributor. |
| 27 |
>>> |
| 28 |
>> Which is the status quo, just with the proposed renaming. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>>> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still need |
| 31 |
>>> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 day |
| 32 |
>>> period.) |
| 33 |
>>> |
| 34 |
>> So, again, effectively the status quo. |
| 35 |
>>> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repository |
| 36 |
>>> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the ebuild |
| 37 |
>>> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebuild |
| 38 |
>>> groups. |
| 39 |
>>> |
| 40 |
>> And, yet again, the status quo. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>>> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors. |
| 43 |
>>> |
| 44 |
>> Why "rebrand" anyone? |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
>>> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust |
| 47 |
>>> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement. |
| 48 |
>>> |
| 49 |
>> Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff quiz |
| 50 |
>> questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to |
| 51 |
>> describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you introduce |
| 52 |
>> another round of quiz taking for new ebuild developers when taking too |
| 53 |
>> much time to get through the quizzes is already probably the most |
| 54 |
>> commonly complained about part of recruiting new ebuild developers. |
| 55 |
>>> -A |
| 56 |
>>> |
| 57 |
>> |
| 58 |
> With respect, I believe you're missing the point of what Alec and Matt |
| 59 |
> are trying to do. Which is predominately formalise and Document the |
| 60 |
> status quo, so there is less misunderstanding from the inside and out. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
My point, in case it was insufficiently clear, was that there was no |
| 63 |
such point made, or even much hinted at, in the proposal itself. So to |
| 64 |
take the relativist perspective, yes I was indeed missing the point, |
| 65 |
though only because the point was missing. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
The proposal would have been much more clearly stated had the space |
| 68 |
spent on things that would merely be updated to reflect the proposed |
| 69 |
nomenclature changes have been lumped together as "change all of the |
| 70 |
things which would need to be updated purely for nomenclature changes as |
| 71 |
needed" and the balance of that space used to briefly note why it would |
| 72 |
be desirable to do so. |
Archives