Re: [gentoo-project] Recruitment issues and potential improvement

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 02/05/2015 05:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-05, o godz. 17:50:21 Markos Chandras
> <hwoarang@g.o> napisał(a):
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 02/05/2015 06:56 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hello, everyone.
>>>
>>> It's finally time to discuss some of the recruitment issues.
>>> It's not a new complaint that the process is time-consuming
>>> and discouraging to our contributors. We have a pretty low
>>> number of new recruits [well, we could definitely have a higher
>>> number!] and too often they resign in the process.
>>>
>>> As I see it, the main issue are ebuild quizzes. They are very
>>> time- consuming and discouraging. It's like filling a quiz
>>> with relatively simple questions where answers need to fit a
>>> key, and you have to tell the recruit to fill in the missing
>>> bits a few times just to help him get further.
>>>
>>> I myself attempted ebuild quiz twice, because the first time I
>>> simply ended up not having the time for it. My late recruit
>>> was making slow progress, and recently vanished -- hopefully
>>> only because he doesn't have will for that anymore. As I see
>>> it, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits here.
>>>
>>> I have discussed this with kensington and a few Council members
>>>  (unofficially), and we came up with following ideas:
>>>
>>> 1. remove or reduce the ebuild quiz to a reasonable number of
>>> questions. In other words, make it bearable. Focus on the
>>> stuff that can't be checked otherwise.
>>>
>>> 2. Add an extra contribution period in which the candidate
>>> commits to the tree through Pull Requests. Developers watch the
>>> requests, review them and decide when the recruit is ready. We
>>> may extend this with requirements like '3 different developers
>>> must review late activities and evaluate them'.
>>>
>>> 3. Possibly extend the recruit-recruiter interaction. Rather
>>> than treating the interrogation as some kind of final
>>> confirmation, make it a small extra part of the learning
>>> process. In other words, reduce the other parts, fill in the
>>> blanks here.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>
>> So you want to discuss the procedures of how a team within
>> Gentoo operates without talking to that team first. And lets say
>> you get an agreement on the list on how recruiters should do
>> their job, and what means they should use, and then you expect
>> that team to simply follow that? Well how about *no*. It's nice
>> to take decisions on behalf of a team that you are not part of
>> and then simply expect them to follow what you have agreed on.
>> Sorry it's not going to happen simply because you wanted to. And
>> you really can't have the council to make such decision when that
>> team is very much alive and active. If you don't like how we do
>> things, then talk to us.
>
> I'm talking to you. Publicly, via this list. Is this a problem?
>

Taking this to a public debate, means that you expect recruiters to
follow what the majority "decides". This is not how the teams operate
in Gentoo. I explained to you why the process is not as "stupid" as
you may think. Certainly there ways to improve it, but like I said,
before you judge the process, you should discuss "mentoring" first.
This is where the problem is.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=
=ccry
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----