From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:44:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb0-f193.google.com with SMTP id v78so3016438ybe.0 for ; 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: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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: <64635918-f70a-c405-02a6-932ac007c961@gentoo.org> <8c80f9fb-ecfa-9a5e-9b85-64207e68aa37@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:44:32 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bzfym6FTSzk-WGu9-cqMlO9oJYU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Next meeting; a motion to have 1 type of Gentoo member. To: gentoo-nfp 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 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


On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@= gentoo.org> wrote:
On 11/06/2016 10:55 PM, Dean Stephens wro= te:
> On 11/06/16 21:32, Alec Warner wrote:
>> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gen= too
>> 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 un= it.
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 w= ant more Gentoo developers as foundation members; but this proposal is not = that.

I'm also not sold on the metastructure y= ou hint at here.
=C2=A0

>> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would onl= y have 1
>> contributor type.
>>
>> 1) Contributors must take the staff quiz (which we should rename t= o 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 b= e
> 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 channel= s
> must take a quiz first, or do they not "contribute"?
>

They contribute but are not recognized, this would allow for easier<= br> recognition.=C2=A0 The quiz may need amending.

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.
=C2=A0

>> 2) Contributors are encouraged to be foundation members, but membe= rship is
>> not required. We may amend the contributor onboarding process to o= ffer
>> foundation membership at the time they join Gentoo as a contributo= r.
>>
> 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 s= till need
>> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 d= ay
>> period.)
>>
> So, again, effectively the status quo.

Again, yes

>> 4) Contributors that do not want access to the gentoo ebuild repos= itory
>> (because they contribute in other ways) do not need to take the eb= uild
>> quiz. Its unclear if a 30 day grace period is required for non-ebu= ild
>> 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 helpf= ul 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 adjus= t
>> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.<= br> >>
> Does comrel really need more to do? Even merely dropping the staff qui= z
> questions from the developer quiz and changing all documentation to > describe everyone as a "contributor" takes time, and you int= roduce
> 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 t= asked with this.
=C2=A0My personal suggestion is for more of a working group, with members o= f
council foundation and comrel to work on this.=C2=A0 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--