Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt@××××××××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: Serious problems with Gentoo Recruiting and returning developers
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:52:34
Message-Id: 1300301495.27600.19.camel@wlt
1 I originally tried to send this to list on the date and time listed
2 below. Which was a day before some other negative events transpired.
3 Turns out I was still banned from posting to all lists from events that
4 transpired back in 2008.
6 Very likely the other events have skewed others perceptions, but if all
7 knew the background story of what I have been dealing with in the past
8 year. Much less things that went on long ago. I think you can start to
9 sympathize a bit with my point of view, if you put yourself in my shoes.
11 On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 16:37 -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
12 > To begin with I have spent almost a year now trying by any means to
13 > rejoin Gentoo which still has not happened. While most any developer I
14 > have interacted with has been very supportive of such and encouraging my
15 > return. When it comes to Gentoo Recruiters, I have received only the
16 > opposite.
17 >
18 > Recruiting alone, along with the process of handling returning devs, has
19 > made it near impossible for me to rejoin. Even worse recruiting has
20 > driven me away a few times in the process. Which recruiting should never
21 > be responsible for making a new developer or returning developer want to
22 > quit or give up on the process.
23 >
24 > After completing my quizzes and waiting for three months last year, I
25 > gave up. At the time I was told by the lead recruiter, Petteri Räty,
26 > that there was a 20 person back log/queue for recruiters. Which I find
27 > that some what unacceptable, but I now know the real reason for the
28 > delay. Time is being wasted in the process and things being drug out
29 > much longer than they need to be. Which I recently experienced first
30 > hand yesterday.
31 >
32 > I accepted the back log/queue reason at the time, which has turned out
33 > to be an excuse. Despite being in regular communication with Petteri.
34 > Not to mention being in #gentoo-java a few times when there was a
35 > schedule team meeting an no one showed. I was around, and that time/hour
36 > could have been spent re-processing me and getting me back on board.
37 > However that was not the case.
38 >
39 > Since then the queue has gone away. But the new reason, or excuse that I
40 > get from Petteri is conflict of interest. He is Java Team lead, a team I
41 > will likely join, but many of my contributions have nothing to do with
42 > Java. Thus he felt a recruiter should not be on the same team or project
43 > as a new developer.
44 >
45 > I do not believe that is documented policy, and if it was would be
46 > incorrect logic. Sure its nice for a recruiter to have a neutral point
47 > of view. However if a recruiter has exposure to a new/returning
48 > developers activity. That will only give them greater knowledge as to
49 > the other persons skill level.
50 >
51 > I basically figured given the resistance and those with the power to
52 > process recruits being totally uncooperative. I had no choice by to give
53 > up on the effort. At least that was something, which is better than
54 > months of nothing. I did not want to wait for something that seemed it
55 > was never going to take place, might as well just give up. Not like I
56 > got any encouragement to be patient.
57 >
58 > Now as I was contributing things over the holidays, another dev I was
59 > attempting to proxying stuff through, or reopened my developer bug.
60 > Which I did not have a problem with. I would like to rejoin if there was
61 > a reasonable way to do that without wasting a ton of time. It seemed
62 > after which some progress was being made. Thomas Sachau was interacting
63 > with me in #gentoo-java, and stepped up to do what Petteri basically
64 > refuses to do, process me as a recruit.
65 >
66 > Which is some what funny, because to join the Java team, there is a
67 > third quiz, beyond the two normal developers must take. The only
68 > recruiter who can review a Java quiz is Petteri. Which speaking of the
69 > Java Quiz there are several questions that are out of date. I brought
70 > that up a few times, and was told I could/should go correct it as a
71 > user. However today it was brought up in #gentoo-java by another who is
72 > seeking to become a gentoo developer. Petteri responded I will go
73 > correct the quizzes, which was not the same response given to me on
74 > several occasions.
75 >
76 > Despite the resistance and all the rest. I kept focused and doing what
77 > was necessary in order to get back on board. I was following up with
78 > Thomas as to when we could set a time. When it got close to that, Thomas
79 > started preaching to me about not getting myself into situations like
80 > the past. Which I felt was uncalled for, and the past should be left
81 > where it is. Now that comment brought about a slew of discussions that
82 > Thomas did not like. Mostly because I dislike devrel, and both Petteri
83 > and Thomas are part of devrel. If not directly then by association with
84 > recruiters project falling under devrel.
85 >
86 > Finally yesterday I got to the point of quiz review. Which prior to
87 > that, Thomas had made several comments about us not completing review in
88 > one sessions. Which I mentioned to him several times, I did it in one
89 > session before with my old recruiter,Bryan Ostergaard. At a time when I
90 > was new, knew less, and had no experience. The second time around should
91 > be much faster than the first, only a few questions changed on the
92 > quizzes. But it seems Thomas had it set in his mind that it would take
93 > more than one session.
94 >
95 > Unfortunately that was the case, and after spending 2hrs in review
96 > yesterday with Thomas, we did not make it past 10b on the first quiz.
97 > Which I find completely unacceptable. Now Thomas puts the delay solely
98 > on me, accepting no blame or fault on his behalf, that I was complaining
99 > through out the process. Which there were some complaints, but that was
100 > not the reason for it taking 2hrs. We should have blown through the
101 > first 10 questions on the first quiz, much less completed review of both
102 > quizzes in 2hrs.
103 >
104 > Now i was trying to make the log of the session public by attaching it
105 > to my developer bug. Not to give out quiz answers or to disrespect the
106 > recruiting process as others might see things. Despite how recruiters
107 > have disrespected me on several occasions. But to shed light on a major
108 > problem. Also so others can form their own opinion as to why it took
109 > 2hrs to cover 10 questions. Which were not the most complex questions of
110 > the 3 quizzes that needed to be reviewed.
111 >
112 > On top of it all I am really amazed at how many bugs are open since I
113 > left. Several bugs were open before I left and remain that way today.
114 > Most any package I maintained is still without a maintainer, and I have
115 > a huge mess to clean up and tons of work to do. All of which I would
116 > have and should have done long ago. For past reasons I rather not bring
117 > up again.
118 >
119 > One might think recruiting would take the amount of work that is not
120 > getting done that I will get done into consideration. In discussions
121 > with Thomas and Petteri I pointed out several times, that I was not
122 > suffering from not being a Gentoo Developer. But in fact Gentoo has
123 > suffered in many ways. Not only with more open bugs and no maintainer on
124 > several packages I maintained. But in many other areas, no monthly
125 > newsletter, no tax return for the foundation, no new recruits for the
126 > java team, etc. The list goes on and on.
127 >
128 > I do not feel recruiting is doing whats in Gentoo's own best interest to
129 > get new or returning developers up and running as soon as possible, and
130 > with the least amount of obstacles. I have no idea why Gentoo goes out
131 > of its way to make things more difficult than they need to be. There is
132 > not enough time for all things that need to be done to get done across
133 > the board. The only way for that ever to change is with increasing the
134 > amount of people and simplifying the process, complexity and delays are
135 > not beneficial.
136 >
137 > However some feel that its best to have less people that are capable of
138 > more. While thats a valid argument, it doesn't hold much water. If that
139 > were true, Gentoo would not be behind in any way. Nor would Gentoo need
140 > or have any benefit for new developers, since everything that needs to
141 > be done is getting done or done. Till that is the case, Gentoo needs to
142 > focus on amount of developers, quantity over quality. Ever day there are
143 > more FOSS projects and applications, only way for Gentoo to keep up is
144 > with numbers.
145 >
146 > For the time being I will not provide any logs or links to facts that
147 > re-enforce my comments. I am doing such out of respect for other
148 > developers wishes and the community as a whole, for now. However I feel
149 > at some point that stuff will have to be exposed to truly shed light on
150 > the matter.
151 >
152 > In the end a few should not hold back many like this. There are many
153 > users suffering, things that need to be done, and recruiting, a few
154 > Gentoo Developers are standing in the way of this. Thus I question any
155 > harm that might result from making private sensitive information public.
156 > Given the harm others are doing thats going some what unnoticed, but
157 > surely visible and felt by users. Gentoo is suffering either way. I
158 > would rather get it all out there now, hit rock bottom sooner than
159 > later, and get back to making things better.
160 >
161 > The current status quo is not acceptable, IMHO.
162 >
165 --
166 William L. Thomson Jr.
167 Obsidian-Studios, Inc.
170 This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
171 information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
172 protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should
173 delete this message.
175 Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking
176 of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.