| 1 |
On 07/11/16 04:55, Dean Stephens wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/06/16 21:32, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo |
| 4 |
>> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer) |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
> Which is a problem in exactly what way? What actual practical benefit is |
| 7 |
> being sought by means of this proposal? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have 1 |
| 10 |
>> contributor type. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename to the |
| 13 |
>> contributor quiz.) |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> Which is already a a subset of the developer quiz, with the exception of |
| 16 |
> two questions that are unique to the staff quiz. If you want devs to be |
| 17 |
> required to describe what ~ARCH is and whether users need to know what |
| 18 |
> EAPI is, there are less labor intensive ways of achieving that goal. |
| 19 |
> Also, are you seriously proposing that anyone who submits a patch or |
| 20 |
> files a bug or helps other users in any of the various support channels |
| 21 |
> must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membership is |
| 24 |
>> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to offer |
| 25 |
>> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributor. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> Which is the status quo, just with the proposed renaming. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still need |
| 30 |
>> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 day |
| 31 |
>> period.) |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
> So, again, effectively the status quo. |
| 34 |
>> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repository |
| 35 |
>> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the ebuild |
| 36 |
>> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebuild |
| 37 |
>> groups. |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
> And, yet again, the status quo. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
>> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors. |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
> Why "rebrand" anyone? |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
>> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust |
| 46 |
>> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement. |
| 47 |
>> |
| 48 |
> Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff quiz |
| 49 |
> questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to |
| 50 |
> describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you introduce |
| 51 |
> another round of quiz taking for new ebuild developers when taking too |
| 52 |
> much time to get through the quizzes is already probably the most |
| 53 |
> commonly complained about part of recruiting new ebuild developers. |
| 54 |
>> -A |
| 55 |
>> |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
With respect, I believe you're missing the point of what Alec and Matt |
| 58 |
are trying to do. Which is predominately formalise and Document the |
| 59 |
status quo, so there is less misunderstanding from the inside and out. |
Archives