From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-nfp+bounces-1430-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41D8E1395E2
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:44:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 71F6221C038;
Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:44:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-yb0-f193.google.com (mail-yb0-f193.google.com [209.85.213.193])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E5C621C038
for <gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:44:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb0-f193.google.com with SMTP id v78so3016438ybe.0
for <gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 10:44:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to;
bh=yw2wvWuEWUQlicXelnvK+D1FkkNWXA9UXepuCSKFOc8=;
b=MkGdIbk5rOqB6ZT6Lpr92oaLSQJ7pYk8KfCI6scR/0gR4ojBXpx5u0yskHykfMgSer
4bXnJ8RK2UNQ/lraBSUyH2IZBcGHCcEZYyDotctcQO8KH5FiWP00iGbrfBIWnER5TJN3
9gw7XLSiVw1oJ9qDyvfcFaNWzDk1tk13cccsIu3sjE5YPVoJshIA03xyahXIzZ1TGRX7
zD1dL0C10WU8a5skn2szsSfGqVD/CmQN3Q66X8xo3HxL36j+RHdn2g4JemzqM+yOA4Yy
XoyPz8F1FQJCBBglNTwfMuzZPC8VilrBgKM2QMQRh5oxyaQFTF/fLux77mupgxYKkOOn
WG8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=yw2wvWuEWUQlicXelnvK+D1FkkNWXA9UXepuCSKFOc8=;
b=gLTJC3nvd8FkI2PMsekcR/rcgsatA983i87CWIpLAzhGJzsVkYsUDaw+oNwze0Xmi1
U+Ajy1h+V5DN4v4A+IepI2/xGhMJ402EvUeMb1GW0hphY5R7r+Z1cCzF4C+T/Rx6rI8I
Jyfvn3m3GjjvIprCaMdoxzbprVi/0LgoqaYIUMyLLcsuKLHTsNW2tJdOD9MoRuUjmG9j
G4apcNS7Vzwo66ycagGoAEMHRa2zdw6LB+7fxmfms7qRIN+fEEZnYn+Gf2J6v9YBK+6e
jlQ3vtwUm1D/DYr6wQl/BOqHYwhT5Mp1HYfLJiDVJGzpeyrQzFycoNjX192cLdSQab+5
dprQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdiy7zPsnC0sWHzTXx3BGSVONpYIqpEQxyFgvnVvVvmSLDUweYlcE5Qtks08sZQDDX5SSSYD1ONniNJWA==
X-Received: by 10.37.216.22 with SMTP id p22mr7072995ybg.42.1478544273229;
Mon, 07 Nov 2016 10:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-nfp+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-nfp+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-nfp+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-nfp.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
Received: by 10.129.112.81 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:44:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:1000:3011:cca2:9fbb:99c6:d22b]
In-Reply-To: <8c80f9fb-ecfa-9a5e-9b85-64207e68aa37@gentoo.org>
References: <CAAr7Pr-ZeH5YOGyT2M-YVn6k7KMmcLPRjwRHzUH_+Kgw6c6e4A@mail.gmail.com>
<64635918-f70a-c405-02a6-932ac007c961@gentoo.org> <8c80f9fb-ecfa-9a5e-9b85-64207e68aa37@gentoo.org>
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:44:32 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: bzfym6FTSzk-WGu9-cqMlO9oJYU
Message-ID: <CAAr7Pr8RnPa-HbT37kMzQLGtkQSFPDnynQY2=5F7c61eHoU3Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Next meeting; a motion to have 1 type of Gentoo member.
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07a6d83103260540ba6a63
X-Archives-Salt: a30df7e5-7f63-4e7a-9be1-e87a0df070b7
X-Archives-Hash: 47a95ce62b4f3ef51358818629b76157
--94eb2c07a6d83103260540ba6a63
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:
> 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).
>
To be clear, I do want more Gentoo developers as foundation members; but
this proposal is not that.
I'm also not sold on the metastructure you hint at here.
>
> >> 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.
>
I want to avoid two classes of developers; "real" developers who contribute
via the ebuild repository and "everyone else" and I suspect having
literally two classes of developer (developer and staff) contributes to
this.
>
> >> 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)
>
>
--94eb2c07a6d83103260540ba6a63
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Thode <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a =
href=3D"mailto:prometheanfire@gentoo.org" target=3D"_blank">prometheanfire@=
gentoo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><span class=3D"gmail-">On 11/06/2016 10:55 PM, Dean Stephens wro=
te:<br>
> On 11/06/16 21:32, Alec Warner wrote:<br>
>> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gen=
too<br>
>> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer)<b=
r>
>><br>
> Which is a problem in exactly what way? What actual practical benefit =
is<br>
> being sought by means of this proposal?<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>The split in the pool of users/voters makes it hard to act as one un=
it.<br>
One way of thinking about this change would be to have the Foundation as<br=
>
the top level project (with ALL members), with council just beneath<br>
(with DEV memebrs).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To be clear, I do w=
ant more Gentoo developers as foundation members; but this proposal is not =
that.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm also not sold on the metastructure y=
ou hint at here.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padd=
ing-left:1ex">
<span class=3D"gmail-"><br>
>> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would onl=
y have 1<br>
>> contributor type.<br>
>><br>
>> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename t=
o the<br>
>> contributor quiz.)<br>
>><br>
> Which is already a a subset of the developer quiz, with the exception =
of<br>
> two questions that are unique to the staff quiz. If you want devs to b=
e<br>
> required to describe what ~ARCH is and whether users need to know what=
<br>
> EAPI is, there are less labor intensive ways of achieving that goal.<b=
r>
> Also, are you seriously proposing that anyone who submits a patch or<b=
r>
> files a bug or helps other users in any of the various support channel=
s<br>
> must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"?<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>They contribute but are not recognized, this would allow for easier<=
br>
recognition.=C2=A0 The quiz may need amending.<br></blockquote><div><br></d=
iv><div>I want to avoid two classes of developers; "real" develop=
ers who contribute via the ebuild repository and "everyone else" =
and I suspect having literally two classes of developer (developer and staf=
f) contributes to this.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,20=
4);padding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D"gmail-"><br>
>> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membe=
rship is<br>
>> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to o=
ffer<br>
>> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributo=
r.<br>
>><br>
> Which is the status quo, just with the proposed renaming.<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>As I see it, yes.<br>
<span class=3D"gmail-"><br>
>> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository s=
till need<br>
>> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 d=
ay<br>
>> period.)<br>
>><br>
> So, again, effectively the status quo.<br>
<br>
</span>Again, yes<br>
<span class=3D"gmail-"><br>
>> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repos=
itory<br>
>> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the eb=
uild<br>
>> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebu=
ild<br>
>> groups.<br>
>><br>
> And, yet again, the status quo.<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>Yes<br>
<span class=3D"gmail-"><br>
>> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.<br=
>
>><br>
> Why "rebrand" anyone?<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>It's my opinion that while not strictly needed it could be helpf=
ul in<br>
that it forms a strong delineation between what was and what is.<br>
<span class=3D"gmail-"><br>
>> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjus=
t<br>
>> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.<=
br>
>><br>
> Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff qui=
z<br>
> questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to<br=
>
> describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you int=
roduce<br>
> another round of quiz taking for new ebuild developers when taking too=
<br>
> much time to get through the quizzes is already probably the most<br>
> commonly complained about part of recruiting new ebuild developers.<br=
>
<br>
</span>Personally I don't think it'd only be comrel that'd be t=
asked with this.<br>
=C2=A0My personal suggestion is for more of a working group, with members o=
f<br>
council foundation and comrel to work on this.=C2=A0 As far as the quiz<br>
updates go, I feel this is more of a formal dividing of the quiz than<br>
adding to it.<br>
<br>
>> -A<br>
<div class=3D"gmail-HOEnZb"><div class=3D"gmail-h5">>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--94eb2c07a6d83103260540ba6a63--