Re: [gentoo-nfp] Next meeting; a motion to have 1 type of Gentoo member.

[Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3040 bytes --]

On 11/06/2016 11:03 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 07/11/16 04:55, 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?
>>
>>> 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"?
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.
>>>
>> Why "rebrand" anyone?
>>
>>> 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.
>>> -A
>>>
>>
> With respect, I believe you're missing the point of what Alec and Matt
> are trying to do. Which is predominately formalise and Document the
> status quo, so there is less misunderstanding from the inside and out.
> 

I can't speak for Alec, but it's my opinion that this is a change, but a
needed one, I'll reply to the other email on it's own.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]