On 11/06/2016 10:55 PM, Dean Stephens wrote:
> On 11/06/16 21:32, Alec Warner wrote:
>> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo
>> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer)
>>
> Which is a problem in exactly what way? What actual practical benefit is
> being sought by means of this proposal?
>

The split in the pool of users/voters makes it hard to act as one unit.
One way of thinking about this change would be to have the Foundation as
the top level project (with ALL members), with council just beneath
(with DEV memebrs).

>> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have 1
>> contributor type.
>>
>> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename to the
>> contributor quiz.)
>>
> Which is already a a subset of the developer quiz, with the exception of
> two questions that are unique to the staff quiz. If you want devs to be
> required to describe what ~ARCH is and whether users need to know what
> EAPI is, there are less labor intensive ways of achieving that goal.
> Also, are you seriously proposing that anyone who submits a patch or
> files a bug or helps other users in any of the various support channels
> must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"?
>

They contribute but are not recognized, this would allow for easier
recognition.  The quiz may need amending.

>> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membership is
>> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to offer
>> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributor.
>>
> Which is the status quo, just with the proposed renaming.
>

As I see it, yes.

>> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still need
>> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 day
>> period.)
>>
> So, again, effectively the status quo.

Again, yes

>> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repository
>> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the ebuild
>> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebuild
>> groups.
>>
> And, yet again, the status quo.
>

Yes

>> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.
>>
> Why "rebrand" anyone?
>

It's my opinion that while not strictly needed it could be helpful in
that it forms a strong delineation between what was and what is.

>> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust
>> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.
>>
> Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff quiz
> questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to
> describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you introduce
> another round of quiz taking for new ebuild developers when taking too
> much time to get through the quizzes is already probably the most
> commonly complained about part of recruiting new ebuild developers.

Personally I don't think it'd only be comrel that'd be tasked with this.
 My personal suggestion is for more of a working group, with members of
council foundation and comrel to work on this.  As far as the quiz
updates go, I feel this is more of a formal dividing of the quiz than
adding to it.

>> -A

>>
>
>

--
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)