| 1 |
On 07/01/17 04:08, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:27 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 06/01/17 22:22, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 01/06/2017 10:49 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> When it comes to recruiting there is quite allot. I do not think anyone will |
| 6 |
>>>> say the recruitment process is expeditious. |
| 7 |
>>> I can say so, becoming a dev is rather easy :) |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> I respectfully disagree .. and having seen enough potential candidates |
| 10 |
>> dismissed or rescinded their applications, I have evidence to the |
| 11 |
>> contrary ... |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> Well, applicants who are dismissed have just met one of the two |
| 14 |
> possible outcomes of the process. That isn't really a failure of the |
| 15 |
> process. That is assuming I understand what you meant by "dismissed." |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Now, applicants who give up is potentially a different matter. I'm |
| 18 |
> not sure how much of that is just general backlog vs a form of |
| 19 |
> selection. I don't know what the current process is but my sense at |
| 20 |
> least in the past was that recruiters didn't necessarily interview |
| 21 |
> candidates in the order they applied but rather prioritized those they |
| 22 |
> considered most likely to be accepted, so if there was any backlog |
| 23 |
> somebody could wait a long time to get into the process if they |
| 24 |
> weren't considered a strong candidate. While the prioritization |
| 25 |
> probably makes sense it would be ideal to at least get them through |
| 26 |
> the process even if it just results in them being dismissed at the |
| 27 |
> end. Obviously there isn't a lot of value in doing that vs processing |
| 28 |
> another more recent candidate who actually gets accepted. The only |
| 29 |
> way to prevent people from waiting forever would be to increase the |
| 30 |
> number of recruiters, and that obviously requires people to volunteer. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
Being quite careful not to point any fingers here, but: |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=3401330&namedcmd=New%20devs%20-hmm&remaction=run |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Ok, so there are a few rogues in there, but a half-dozen who could be |
| 37 |
contributing (more) regularly to Gentoo if the process was a bit |
| 38 |
smoother and smarter .. imho ... |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
[with apologies if Bugzie is playin up] |
Archives