| 1 |
On 07/11/16 13:32, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo |
| 3 |
> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
That is no longer correct - "staffer" is a thing of the past. These |
| 6 |
days, everyone is a developer whether they work on ebuilds or not. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have |
| 10 |
> 1 contributor type. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename to the |
| 13 |
> contributor quiz.) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If by contributor you mean a developer who does not work on ebuilds, |
| 17 |
this is already the case. Such developers already require a mentor, |
| 18 |
complete the historically-named 'staff' quiz, and follow the normal |
| 19 |
recruiting process. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membership |
| 23 |
> is not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to |
| 24 |
> offer foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributor. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
We already do this. Part of the text a recruiter posts to a |
| 27 |
newly-recruited developer's bug is "contact trustees@g.o for |
| 28 |
Foundation membership (optional)". |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still |
| 32 |
> need to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 |
| 33 |
> day period.) |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repository |
| 36 |
> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the ebuild |
| 37 |
> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebuild |
| 38 |
> groups. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
This is no change to current practice. Every new developer already is |
| 41 |
required to have a mentor, complete a quiz appropriate to what they'll |
| 42 |
be working on, and have a 30 day probation period. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
As there is currently no distinction between different types of |
| 48 |
developers, what will be gained by rebranding everyone? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust |
| 52 |
> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
While I applaud your efforts, the proposal seems to be based on an |
| 55 |
outdated picture of the community. Additionally, given our current |
| 56 |
metastructure, it's not clear to me how this is even a Foundation issue. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
The only thing that needs updating is documentation to reflect the |
| 59 |
reality that everyone is a developer, and everyone completes a quiz |
| 60 |
appropriate to what they will be working on. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Coincidentally I've already looked into fixing the quizzes. The 'staff' |
| 63 |
quiz and the non-technical section of the 'ebuild' quiz are very |
| 64 |
similar, so my proposal to recruiters was to: |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
1) Rename 'staff' quiz to 'developer' quiz |
| 67 |
2) Remove non-technical section from the 'ebuild' quiz |
| 68 |
3) All developers take the 'developer' quiz, and developers wishing to |
| 69 |
work on ebuilds take the 'ebuild' quizzes. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
This should be uncontroversial because it's just fixing the semantics to |
| 72 |
match reality. There's no change to the actual questions asked by any |
| 73 |
given new developer. |
Archives