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

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 2015-02-05, o godz. 21:08:43
Mikle Kolyada <zlogene@g.o> napisał(a):

>
> 05.02.2015 09:56, Michał Górny пишет:
> > 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?
> >
> I try to be short.
> First of all, i'm against to make quizzes simpler or shorter. I have few
> real examples, when people do a LOT of mistakes even after they passed
> the quizzes.

And how people doing mistakes *after* passing the quizzes proves that
quizzes are good? As I see it, this just proves that they don't do
their job.

> > Add an extra contribution period in which the candidate commits to
> the tree through Pull Requests.
>
> All mentors should track their recruits during first month. If mentor
> doesn't do this, this is "bad" mentor, IMO. It looks like some mentors
> think *ok, my mentee passed the quizzes, he is a developer, i can to
> nothing*

This happens *after* being recruited. What I'm talking, there should be
more focus on doing and judging actual contributions before all that
formal crap.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny