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

[Dean Stephens]

On 11/07/16 00:19, Matthew Thode 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.
I have never had any trouble with "acting as one unit" with ebuild
developers due to any notional divide between myself, as staff, and
"them" as ebuild developers.

> 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).
>
That would be an entirely different proposal than merely juggling names
around and making some changes to the quiz structure.


>>> 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.
>
Easier recognition by whom, the people that they are already working
with? Many of the people that submit patches, file bugs, and/or help
with technical support without becoming formal members of Gentoo do so
in part because taking even the staff quiz is seen as, at best,
make-work. While I do not necessarily share that opinion in general,
that perception is more in need of addressing than what sort of official
designation individual project members have.

>>> 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.
>
Without reference to what exactly "what is" and "what was" are to be
once "what is" has been realized, delineating them seems rather arbitrary.

>>> 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.
>
The proposal as it stands is to have developers take the staff quiz,
then the ebuild quiz, then the end quiz; while the developer quiz would
logically have the overlap dropped, it is another round of quiz taking.
In practice, such a change could take the form of taking both the staff
and (reduced form) developer quizzes concurrently, but that is not the
standing proposal.

>>> -A
>>>
>>
>>
>