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

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Dean Stephens <desultory@g.o> 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?


> > 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"?
>

I am not seriously proposing that, no.


>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
> > 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.
>
> > 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.
> >
> Why "rebrand" anyone?
>

I primarily want to avoid bifurcation of the developership.


>
> > 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.
> > -A
> >
>

I would of course be the guy owning most of that work (editing documents,
while annoying, is well within my capabilities.)

I think the quiz question is a fair point, I'll consider mitigation in
future iterations.

-A