Re: [gentoo-nfp] Next meeting; a motion to have 1 type of Gentoo member.

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o>
wrote:

> On 11/06/2016 10:55 PM, Dean Stephens wrote:
> > On 11/06/16 21:32, Alec Warner wrote:
> >> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo
> >> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer)
> >>
> > Which is a problem in exactly what way? What actual practical benefit is
> > being sought by means of this proposal?
> >
>
> The split in the pool of users/voters makes it hard to act as one unit.
> One way of thinking about this change would be to have the Foundation as
> the top level project (with ALL members), with council just beneath
> (with DEV memebrs).
>

To be clear, I do want more Gentoo developers as foundation members; but
this proposal is not that.

I'm also not sold on the metastructure you hint at here.


>
> >> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only
> have 1
> >> contributor type.
> >>
> >> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename to the
> >> contributor quiz.)
> >>
> > Which is already a a subset of the developer quiz, with the exception of
> > two questions that are unique to the staff quiz. If you want devs to be
> > required to describe what ~ARCH is and whether users need to know what
> > EAPI is, there are less labor intensive ways of achieving that goal.
> > Also, are you seriously proposing that anyone who submits a patch or
> > files a bug or helps other users in any of the various support channels
> > must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"?
> >
>
> They contribute but are not recognized, this would allow for easier
> recognition.  The quiz may need amending.
>

I want to avoid two classes of developers; "real" developers who contribute
via the ebuild repository and "everyone else" and I suspect having
literally two classes of developer (developer and staff) contributes to
this.


>
> >> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membership
> is
> >> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to offer
> >> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributor.
> >>
> > Which is the status quo, just with the proposed renaming.
> >
>
> As I see it, yes.
>
> >> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still
> need
> >> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 day
> >> period.)
> >>
> > So, again, effectively the status quo.
>
> Again, yes
>
> >> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repository
> >> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the ebuild
> >> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebuild
> >> groups.
> >>
> > And, yet again, the status quo.
> >
>
> Yes
>
> >> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.
> >>
> > Why "rebrand" anyone?
> >
>
> It's my opinion that while not strictly needed it could be helpful in
> that it forms a strong delineation between what was and what is.
>
> >> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust
> >> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.
> >>
> > Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff quiz
> > questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to
> > describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you introduce
> > another round of quiz taking for new ebuild developers when taking too
> > much time to get through the quizzes is already probably the most
> > commonly complained about part of recruiting new ebuild developers.
>
> Personally I don't think it'd only be comrel that'd be tasked with this.
>  My personal suggestion is for more of a working group, with members of
> council foundation and comrel to work on this.  As far as the quiz
> updates go, I feel this is more of a formal dividing of the quiz than
> adding to it.
>
> >> -A
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>
>