| 1 |
On 11/06/16 21:32, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo |
| 3 |
> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
Which is a problem in exactly what way? What actual practical benefit is |
| 6 |
being sought by means of this proposal? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have 1 |
| 9 |
> contributor type. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename to the |
| 12 |
> contributor quiz.) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
Which is already a a subset of the developer quiz, with the exception of |
| 15 |
two questions that are unique to the staff quiz. If you want devs to be |
| 16 |
required to describe what ~ARCH is and whether users need to know what |
| 17 |
EAPI is, there are less labor intensive ways of achieving that goal. |
| 18 |
Also, are you seriously proposing that anyone who submits a patch or |
| 19 |
files a bug or helps other users in any of the various support channels |
| 20 |
must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membership is |
| 23 |
> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to offer |
| 24 |
> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributor. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
Which is the status quo, just with the proposed renaming. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still need |
| 29 |
> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 day |
| 30 |
> period.) |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
So, again, effectively the status quo. |
| 33 |
> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repository |
| 34 |
> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the ebuild |
| 35 |
> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebuild |
| 36 |
> groups. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
And, yet again, the status quo. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
Why "rebrand" anyone? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust |
| 45 |
> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff quiz |
| 48 |
questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to |
| 49 |
describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you introduce |
| 50 |
another round of quiz taking for new ebuild developers when taking too |
| 51 |
much time to get through the quizzes is already probably the most |
| 52 |
commonly complained about part of recruiting new ebuild developers. |
| 53 |
> -A |
| 54 |
> |
Archives