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

[Michał Górny]

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?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny