1 |
On 11/06/2016 10:55 PM, 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 |
|
10 |
The split in the pool of users/voters makes it hard to act as one unit. |
11 |
One way of thinking about this change would be to have the Foundation as |
12 |
the top level project (with ALL members), with council just beneath |
13 |
(with DEV memebrs). |
14 |
|
15 |
>> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have 1 |
16 |
>> contributor type. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename to the |
19 |
>> contributor quiz.) |
20 |
>> |
21 |
> Which is already a a subset of the developer quiz, with the exception of |
22 |
> two questions that are unique to the staff quiz. If you want devs to be |
23 |
> required to describe what ~ARCH is and whether users need to know what |
24 |
> EAPI is, there are less labor intensive ways of achieving that goal. |
25 |
> Also, are you seriously proposing that anyone who submits a patch or |
26 |
> files a bug or helps other users in any of the various support channels |
27 |
> must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"? |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
They contribute but are not recognized, this would allow for easier |
31 |
recognition. The quiz may need amending. |
32 |
|
33 |
>> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membership is |
34 |
>> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to offer |
35 |
>> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributor. |
36 |
>> |
37 |
> Which is the status quo, just with the proposed renaming. |
38 |
> |
39 |
|
40 |
As I see it, yes. |
41 |
|
42 |
>> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still need |
43 |
>> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 day |
44 |
>> period.) |
45 |
>> |
46 |
> So, again, effectively the status quo. |
47 |
|
48 |
Again, yes |
49 |
|
50 |
>> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repository |
51 |
>> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the ebuild |
52 |
>> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebuild |
53 |
>> groups. |
54 |
>> |
55 |
> And, yet again, the status quo. |
56 |
> |
57 |
|
58 |
Yes |
59 |
|
60 |
>> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors. |
61 |
>> |
62 |
> Why "rebrand" anyone? |
63 |
> |
64 |
|
65 |
It's my opinion that while not strictly needed it could be helpful in |
66 |
that it forms a strong delineation between what was and what is. |
67 |
|
68 |
>> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust |
69 |
>> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement. |
70 |
>> |
71 |
> Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff quiz |
72 |
> questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to |
73 |
> describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you introduce |
74 |
> another round of quiz taking for new ebuild developers when taking too |
75 |
> much time to get through the quizzes is already probably the most |
76 |
> commonly complained about part of recruiting new ebuild developers. |
77 |
|
78 |
Personally I don't think it'd only be comrel that'd be tasked with this. |
79 |
My personal suggestion is for more of a working group, with members of |
80 |
council foundation and comrel to work on this. As far as the quiz |
81 |
updates go, I feel this is more of a formal dividing of the quiz than |
82 |
adding to it. |
83 |
|
84 |
>> -A |
85 |
>> |
86 |
> |
87 |
> |
88 |
|
89 |
-- |
90 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |