1 |
On 2022.07.22 12:56, Joonas Niilola wrote: |
2 |
> Cross-posting to gentoo-dev and -project lists due to technical and |
3 |
> non-technical nature. Reply-to is set to -project. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Once again new council has been elected: congratulations to the chosen |
6 |
> members! And once again many nominees expressed their wishes to see |
7 |
> more |
8 |
> non-developer contributors to become official developers. Yet, only |
9 |
> very |
10 |
> few people (if any) are interested in mentoring them. I get it, the |
11 |
> relationship between a mentor and their mentee is very intimate, and |
12 |
> mentoring takes a lot of time. While the Github PRs are helping us |
13 |
> increase the user contributions merged, perhaps it's distancing us |
14 |
> from |
15 |
> creating stronger bonds with the contributors? But more about this |
16 |
> topic |
17 |
> later. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> |
20 |
> 1st RFC: "Trusted contributor model" |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I'm proposing us to giving special commit access to our well-reputable |
23 |
> contributors (mostly proxied maintainers). They'd have access _only_ |
24 |
> to |
25 |
> their maintained package in git-tree. To understand what I mean, check |
26 |
> git shortlog -s -n net-im/telegram-desktop-bin/ |
27 |
> git shortlog -s -n net-im/signal-desktop-bin/ |
28 |
> |
29 |
> There are few packages like these where I'd already trust the core |
30 |
> proxied maintainer to commit at their will. It's as ajak said during |
31 |
> the |
32 |
> council election; _We_ are the bottleneck currently reviewing and |
33 |
> _testing_ contributions, and with these two examples above, 99 % of |
34 |
> time |
35 |
> everything's in condition and we just need to merge. Obviously if |
36 |
> these |
37 |
> trusted contributors had to touch another package, or anything in |
38 |
> profiles/ (just basically anything outside their dedicated package |
39 |
> directory) they'd have to do a PR or .patch file to be merged by |
40 |
> official developers. And they'd still need a proxy Gentoo |
41 |
> developer/project listed in metadata, at least for now, to take |
42 |
> responsibility. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> On the technical side I'm not sure how to achieve this, but I know it |
45 |
> can be done. For example the sync-repos are compiled like this all the |
46 |
> time. If this proposal gains support, I'm willing to start figuring it |
47 |
> out more in-depth. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> AFAIK Fedora and Arch have somewhat similar systems in place already. |
50 |
|
51 |
Try it and see. |
52 |
Once access had been granted. Who is responsible for monitoring? |
53 |
I would expect it to be the dev that usually made the commits but |
54 |
due to the trust model, more or a random sample basis. |
55 |
|
56 |
The access can be revoked, if required, so it seems to be a win/win. |
57 |
|
58 |
Are these trusted contributors devs? |
59 |
e.g. accounts on Woodpecker, standing/voting in council elections |
60 |
and so on? |
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
> |
64 |
> |
65 |
> 2nd RFC: Recruiting proven contributors without a mentor |
66 |
> |
67 |
> I'm aware recruiters don't really need to ask a permission here, but I |
68 |
> believe it's great to gauge the general feelings about this |
69 |
> beforehand. |
70 |
> What would you say if recruiters started more actively approaching |
71 |
> potential developers? And currently I'm talking about people who have |
72 |
> been active for a very long time (+year or two), who keep up with |
73 |
> development-wise changes in Gentoo (eclasses, EAPI, virtuals...), |
74 |
> participate in the community, and always provide top-quality |
75 |
> contributions, but for some reason never got a mentor? I'd like to |
76 |
> point |
77 |
> out that this method would only be for the very few ones and |
78 |
> recruiting |
79 |
> through mentoring would still be the desired method. Recruiting |
80 |
> through |
81 |
> recruiters would still require the candidate to fill the |
82 |
> ebuild/developer quiz, and they'd have to pass it without a mentor. So |
83 |
> I'll emphasize: Currently only few special ones would qualify. |
84 |
> |
85 |
> But seeing the general lack of interest towards mentoring, maybe this |
86 |
> is |
87 |
> something we _need_ to do in near future. |
88 |
|
89 |
I'm more on the fence on this one. The mentors job does not stop |
90 |
when recruitments completes. The mentor is still required to keep a |
91 |
weather eye on progress for another six months. |
92 |
|
93 |
How does the post recruitment mentoring happen with no mentor? |
94 |
I can see how it works with the subjects in RFQ 1 ... they have |
95 |
been mentored since they obtained their trusted status but what |
96 |
about others? |
97 |
|
98 |
> |
99 |
> -- juippis |
100 |
> |
101 |
|
102 |
-- |
103 |
Regards, |
104 |
|
105 |
Roy Bamford |
106 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
107 |
elections |
108 |
gentoo-ops |
109 |
forum-mods |
110 |
arm64 |