1 |
On 11/07/16 13:35, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Dean Stephens <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On 11/06/16 21:32, Alec Warner wrote: |
5 |
>>> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo |
6 |
>>> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer) |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>> Which is a problem in exactly what way? What actual practical benefit is |
9 |
>> being sought by means of this proposal? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
>>> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have |
13 |
>> 1 |
14 |
>>> contributor type. |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename to the |
17 |
>>> contributor quiz.) |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>> Which is already a a subset of the developer quiz, with the exception of |
20 |
>> two questions that are unique to the staff quiz. If you want devs to be |
21 |
>> required to describe what ~ARCH is and whether users need to know what |
22 |
>> EAPI is, there are less labor intensive ways of achieving that goal. |
23 |
>> Also, are you seriously proposing that anyone who submits a patch or |
24 |
>> files a bug or helps other users in any of the various support channels |
25 |
>> must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"? |
26 |
>> |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I am not seriously proposing that, no. |
29 |
> |
30 |
In that case, might I suggest considering "rebranding" your proposal in |
31 |
such a way as to not belittle their contributions? Even simply dropping |
32 |
the renaming entirely? |
33 |
|
34 |
> |
35 |
>> |
36 |
>>> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membership |
37 |
>> is |
38 |
>>> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to offer |
39 |
>>> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributor. |
40 |
>>> |
41 |
>> Which is the status quo, just with the proposed renaming. |
42 |
>> |
43 |
>>> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still |
44 |
>> need |
45 |
>>> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 day |
46 |
>>> period.) |
47 |
>>> |
48 |
>> So, again, effectively the status quo. |
49 |
>>> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repository |
50 |
>>> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the ebuild |
51 |
>>> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebuild |
52 |
>>> groups. |
53 |
>>> |
54 |
>> And, yet again, the status quo. |
55 |
>> |
56 |
>>> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors. |
57 |
>>> |
58 |
>> Why "rebrand" anyone? |
59 |
>> |
60 |
> |
61 |
> I primarily want to avoid bifurcation of the developership. |
62 |
> |
63 |
Having never been an ebuild developer, at least not with tree access; |
64 |
allow me to alleviate your concerns, at least in part: I have never had |
65 |
any issue with "bifurcation" between those with tree access and those |
66 |
without on the basis of tree access or lack thereof. |
67 |
|
68 |
> |
69 |
>> |
70 |
>>> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust |
71 |
>>> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement. |
72 |
>>> |
73 |
>> Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff quiz |
74 |
>> questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to |
75 |
>> describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you introduce |
76 |
>> another round of quiz taking for new ebuild developers when taking too |
77 |
>> much time to get through the quizzes is already probably the most |
78 |
>> commonly complained about part of recruiting new ebuild developers. |
79 |
>>> -A |
80 |
>>> |
81 |
>> |
82 |
> |
83 |
> I would of course be the guy owning most of that work (editing documents, |
84 |
> while annoying, is well within my capabilities.) |
85 |
> |
86 |
> I think the quiz question is a fair point, I'll consider mitigation in |
87 |
> future iterations. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> -A |
90 |
> |