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

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

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1118 bytes --]

The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo
itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer)

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.)

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.

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

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.

5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.

If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust
existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.

-A

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1362 bytes --]

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

[Dean Stephens]

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
> 

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

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2753 bytes --]

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.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- 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 --]

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3448 bytes --]

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)


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

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

[Sven Vermeulen]

On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 06:32:59PM -0800, 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)
>    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.)
>    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.
>    3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still
>    need to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30
>    day period.)
>    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.
>    5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.
>    If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust
>    existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.

The difference between Staff and Developer is "merely" that a Developer has
access to the Portage tree (and as such can influence system behavior of
Gentoo users). Staff are still developers, they work on other aspects of the
distribution, such as core documentation, infrastructure, release
engineering, forum maintenance, etc.

I would not appreciate an intake for contributors. Many wiki contributors
(which offer a wealth of documentation information) would be affected by
this, which they will see as bureaucratic stuff. Same with proxy maintained
packages. Those contributors are no staff, yet they provide valuable
improvements to Gentoo.

If we would want to align Gentoo Project user-types and Foundation, then we
are moving the project management into Foundation space a bit. Currently,
the Foundation has always tried not to meddle within this. I am not opposed
to making things a bit easier for both though (for instance, all staff and
developers are automatically Gentoo Foundation members).

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2749 bytes --]

On 11/07/2016 02:23 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 06:32:59PM -0800, 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)
>>    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.)
>>    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.
>>    3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still
>>    need to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30
>>    day period.)
>>    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.
>>    5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.
>>    If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust
>>    existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.
> 
> The difference between Staff and Developer is "merely" that a Developer has
> access to the Portage tree (and as such can influence system behavior of
> Gentoo users). Staff are still developers, they work on other aspects of the
> distribution, such as core documentation, infrastructure, release
> engineering, forum maintenance, etc.
> 
> I would not appreciate an intake for contributors. Many wiki contributors
> (which offer a wealth of documentation information) would be affected by
> this, which they will see as bureaucratic stuff. Same with proxy maintained
> packages. Those contributors are no staff, yet they provide valuable
> improvements to Gentoo.
> 
> If we would want to align Gentoo Project user-types and Foundation, then we
> are moving the project management into Foundation space a bit. Currently,
> the Foundation has always tried not to meddle within this. I am not opposed
> to making things a bit easier for both though (for instance, all staff and
> developers are automatically Gentoo Foundation members).
> 
> Wkr,
> 	Sven Vermeulen
> 

I hope I'm not putting words in Alec's mouth, but I see this as more of
an optional thing.  Though if mandatory it'd be akin to signing a CLA
(which I'd personally be against as well).

We might be best served by defining what a contributor is.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


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

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

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1092 bytes --]

On 11/07/2016 03:32 AM, 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)

I would like to point out that the bylaws repeatedly reference "Gentoo
developers", c.f e.g Section 4.3: "Active Gentoo developers who are not
members of the Foundation may apply for membership", and "Applicants who
are not Gentoo developers need to cite verifiable evidence of
contributing to Gentoo or to the stated aims of the Gentoo Foundation Inc. "

Has the need for change of bylaws to reflect the new names, in addition
to all other documentation that needs updated, been considered with this
proposal? What is the ultimate goal of these changes. I'd request that a
Memorandum be produced that discusses the rewards and benefits somewhat
more verbosely ahead of the next AGM to have a basis of decision of
approval of the bylaw changes.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

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

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2283 bytes --]

On 2016.11.07 02:32, 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)
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still
> need
> to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30 day
> period.)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.
> 
> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust
> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.
> 
> -A
> 

Its worth explaining a bit of the background. 
Historically, both ebuild devs and staff had quizzes to onboard with
the project.  Foundation membership for this group was opt in 
from 2008. Prior to 2008 it was opt out.

From 2008, non project members were able to gain Foundation 
membership by demonstrating support of Gentoo.

This has lead to potentially two different constituencies of electors
as foundation members are not a subset of Gentoo project
members.  It is theoretically possible for a board to be elected 
that does not reflect the wishes of the Gentoo project electorate.

From memory, the foundation has had at most three members
who have not done any quizzes. These individuals can vote 
for and serve on the foundation board but not council.

This motion, if carried, would be a first step to move Gentoo 
back to a single constituency of electors, as it was prior to 2008.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

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

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

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 899 bytes --]

>>>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:

> I would like to point out that the bylaws repeatedly reference
> "Gentoo developers", c.f e.g Section 4.3: "Active Gentoo developers
> who are not members of the Foundation may apply for membership", and
> "Applicants who are not Gentoo developers need to cite verifiable
> evidence of contributing to Gentoo or to the stated aims of the
> Gentoo Foundation Inc. "

Also, GLEP 39 uses the term ("a project is a group of developers",
"council members represent all developers"). Since it was incepted by
an all-developers vote, it would presumably require an all-developers
vote again for such a change.

I would suggest keeping the established terminology there. Developers
have taken a variant of the quizzes. They can join projects and vote
for the council. Please don't create confusion by inventing new terms
like "contributor".

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

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

[Luca Barbato]

On 07/11/2016 03:32, 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)
> 
> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have 1
> contributor type.

Should not be discussed here since you want to change something mainly
in the Gentoo Project, not the Gentoo Foundation.

Incidentally I'd like to know how many are staff and not also developers.

If you perceive the two roles as a problem the simplest thing is to
mandate everybody to be a developer.

lu

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

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:19 AM, 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).

I think it is a mistake to have the Trustees and Council elected by
different bodies.  This is just going to tend to create conflict
between these groups because they end up having different
constituencies.

Right now developers without commit access already are allowed to
become both Foundation members and vote for council.  You're
suggesting that they lose their rights to vote for Council members?
That doesn't seem like an improvement.

As long as the standards for becoming a non-committing
staff/dev/whatever are the same as they are today, I don't really have
a problem with most of the proposal as it is just the status quo.  The
only change I'd suggest is that when somebody is no longer
staff/dev/whatever they lose their Foundation membership.

I think that is important to keep the group of people voting for
Council/Trustees the same as much as possible.  Otherwise you're going
to get even more reluctance for the two bodies to work together.

-- 
Rich

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

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 849 bytes --]

On 11/07/2016 12:50 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think that is important to keep the group of people voting for
> Council/Trustees the same as much as possible.  Otherwise you're going
> to get even more reluctance for the two bodies to work together.

Right, which would be done by requiring all foundation members to be
developers.

The drawback of that is that it removes possibility of things like
"sponsor"-level membership (which could be a non-voting membership class
if bylaws are changed to accomodate it) but allow for corporate
sponsorships in a structured manner if that is necessary on a
subscription basis. So far it seems like there hasn't been much need for
this, though.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

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

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 11/07/2016 12:50 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think that is important to keep the group of people voting for
>> Council/Trustees the same as much as possible.  Otherwise you're going
>> to get even more reluctance for the two bodies to work together.
>
> Right, which would be done by requiring all foundation members to be
> developers.

Developers, contributors, users.  Whatever you want to call it.  As
long as they go through the current non-committer recruitment process
I don't think the name matters a great deal as long as we're
consistent.  They should still be subject to all the same community
standards (staff quiz, CoC, Comrel, etc).

> The drawback of that is that it removes possibility of things like
> "sponsor"-level membership (which could be a non-voting membership class
> if bylaws are changed to accomodate it) but allow for corporate
> sponsorships in a structured manner if that is necessary on a
> subscription basis. So far it seems like there hasn't been much need for
> this, though.

Well, such things don't exist today, but if there were ever a need it
could still be bolted on.  As long as this is non-voting I don't think
it really creates any issues on this particular issue.  No doubt there
are going to be lots of opinions on what it means to be a sponsor and
so on, but I think that's a different debate.

I think the goal is to align the voting pools for Council/Trustees and
have just one set of community standards for everybody, and I think
that makes sense.

-- 
Rich

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

[David Abbott]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 11/07/2016 12:50 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think that is important to keep the group of people voting for
>> Council/Trustees the same as much as possible.  Otherwise you're going
>> to get even more reluctance for the two bodies to work together.
>
> Right, which would be done by requiring all foundation members to be
> developers

I would like to keep the term "Developers"

Staff Developers (docs, pr, etc)
Ebuild Developers (full commit access)

If someone wants to join the foundation they would need to become at
least a Staff Developer.
Then all members would be developers.

>
> The drawback of that is that it removes possibility of things like
> "sponsor"-level membership (which could be a non-voting membership class
> if bylaws are changed to accomodate it) but allow for corporate
> sponsorships in a structured manner if that is necessary on a
> subscription basis. So far it seems like there hasn't been much need for
> this, though.
>
> --
> Kristian Fiskerstrand
> OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
> fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
>



-- 
David Abbott

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

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2882 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Dean Stephens <desultory@gentoo.org> 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"?
>

I am not seriously proposing that, no.


>
> > 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?
>

I primarily want to avoid bifurcation of the developership.


>
> > 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
> >
>

I would of course be the guy owning most of that work (editing documents,
while annoying, is well within my capabilities.)

I think the quiz question is a fair point, I'll consider mitigation in
future iterations.

-A

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4125 bytes --]

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

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3994 bytes --]

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)
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5542 bytes --]

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

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2860 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 06:32:59PM -0800, 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)
> >    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.)
> >    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.
> >    3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still
> >    need to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30
> >    day period.)
> >    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.
> >    5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.
> >    If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust
> >    existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.
>
> The difference between Staff and Developer is "merely" that a Developer has
> access to the Portage tree (and as such can influence system behavior of
> Gentoo users). Staff are still developers, they work on other aspects of
> the
> distribution, such as core documentation, infrastructure, release
> engineering, forum maintenance, etc.
>
> I would not appreciate an intake for contributors. Many wiki contributors
> (which offer a wealth of documentation information) would be affected by
> this, which they will see as bureaucratic stuff. Same with proxy maintained
> packages. Those contributors are no staff, yet they provide valuable
> improvements to Gentoo.
>

I'm not suggesting we intake for wiki contributors (for the same reason
there is no intake for forum members, or irc channels.) I think there
should be intake for administrators. So Forums-mods should take the
developer quiz, as should wiki administrators, pr people, irc ops, bugzilla
admins, etc.


>
> If we would want to align Gentoo Project user-types and Foundation, then we
> are moving the project management into Foundation space a bit. Currently,
> the Foundation has always tried not to meddle within this. I am not opposed
> to making things a bit easier for both though (for instance, all staff and
> developers are automatically Gentoo Foundation members).
>

I want to handle foundation membership on a separate thread, if you would ;)

-A


>
> Wkr,
>         Sven Vermeulen
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3741 bytes --]

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

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1055 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> > I would like to point out that the bylaws repeatedly reference
> > "Gentoo developers", c.f e.g Section 4.3: "Active Gentoo developers
> > who are not members of the Foundation may apply for membership", and
> > "Applicants who are not Gentoo developers need to cite verifiable
> > evidence of contributing to Gentoo or to the stated aims of the
> > Gentoo Foundation Inc. "
>
> Also, GLEP 39 uses the term ("a project is a group of developers",
> "council members represent all developers"). Since it was incepted by
> an all-developers vote, it would presumably require an all-developers
> vote again for such a change.
>
> I would suggest keeping the established terminology there. Developers
> have taken a variant of the quizzes. They can join projects and vote
> for the council. Please don't create confusion by inventing new terms
> like "contributor".
>

Seems reasonable, thanks for your input.


>
> Ulrich
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1736 bytes --]

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

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 07/11/2016 03:32, 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)
> >
> > This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have
> 1
> > contributor type.
>
> Should not be discussed here since you want to change something mainly
> in the Gentoo Project, not the Gentoo Foundation.
>

The outcome of the motion isn't that the changes are accepted; I'm sorry if
I gave that impression.
I wanted the trustees to agree (via formal motion) that this was something
the trustees wanted to happen and would
pursue inside of the existing meta-structure.


>
> Incidentally I'd like to know how many are staff and not also developers.
>
> If you perceive the two roles as a problem the simplest thing is to
> mandate everybody to be a developer.
>
> lu
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1533 bytes --]

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

[Dean Stephens]

On 11/07/16 00:03, 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.
> 
My point, in case it was insufficiently clear, was that there was no
such point made, or even much hinted at, in the proposal itself. So to
take the relativist perspective, yes I was indeed missing the point,
though only because the point was missing.

The proposal would have been much more clearly stated had the space
spent on things that would merely be updated to reflect the proposed
nomenclature changes have been lumped together as "change all of the
things which would need to be updated purely for nomenclature changes as
needed" and the balance of that space used to briefly note why it would
be desirable to do so.

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

[Dean Stephens]

On 11/07/16 00:19, 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.
I have never had any trouble with "acting as one unit" with ebuild
developers due to any notional divide between myself, as staff, and
"them" as ebuild developers.

> 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).
> 
That would be an entirely different proposal than merely juggling names
around and making some changes to the quiz structure.


>>> 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.
> 
Easier recognition by whom, the people that they are already working
with? Many of the people that submit patches, file bugs, and/or help
with technical support without becoming formal members of Gentoo do so
in part because taking even the staff quiz is seen as, at best,
make-work. While I do not necessarily share that opinion in general,
that perception is more in need of addressing than what sort of official
designation individual project members have.

>>> 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.
> 
Without reference to what exactly "what is" and "what was" are to be
once "what is" has been realized, delineating them seems rather arbitrary.

>>> 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.
> 
The proposal as it stands is to have developers take the staff quiz,
then the ebuild quiz, then the end quiz; while the developer quiz would
logically have the overlap dropped, it is another round of quiz taking.
In practice, such a change could take the form of taking both the staff
and (reduced form) developer quizzes concurrently, but that is not the
standing proposal.

>>> -A
>>>
>>
>>
> 

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

[Dean Stephens]

On 11/07/16 13:35, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Dean Stephens <desultory@gentoo.org> 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"?
>>
> 
> I am not seriously proposing that, no.
> 
In that case, might I suggest considering "rebranding" your proposal in
such a way as to not belittle their contributions? Even simply dropping
the renaming entirely?

> 
>>
>>> 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?
>>
> 
> I primarily want to avoid bifurcation of the developership.
> 
Having never been an ebuild developer, at least not with tree access;
allow me to alleviate your concerns, at least in part: I have never had
any issue with "bifurcation" between those with tree access and those
without on the basis of tree access or lack thereof.

> 
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
> 
> I would of course be the guy owning most of that work (editing documents,
> while annoying, is well within my capabilities.)
> 
> I think the quiz question is a fair point, I'll consider mitigation in
> future iterations.
> 
> -A
> 

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

[Dean Stephens]

On 11/07/16 13:46, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 06:32:59PM -0800, 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)
>>>    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.)
>>>    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.
>>>    3) Contributors that want access to the gentoo ebuild repository still
>>>    need to follow the normal recruiting process (ebuild quiz, mentor, 30
>>>    day period.)
>>>    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.
>>>    5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.
>>>    If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust
>>>    existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.
>>
>> The difference between Staff and Developer is "merely" that a Developer has
>> access to the Portage tree (and as such can influence system behavior of
>> Gentoo users). Staff are still developers, they work on other aspects of
>> the
>> distribution, such as core documentation, infrastructure, release
>> engineering, forum maintenance, etc.
>>
>> I would not appreciate an intake for contributors. Many wiki contributors
>> (which offer a wealth of documentation information) would be affected by
>> this, which they will see as bureaucratic stuff. Same with proxy maintained
>> packages. Those contributors are no staff, yet they provide valuable
>> improvements to Gentoo.
>>
> 
> I'm not suggesting we intake for wiki contributors (for the same reason
> there is no intake for forum members, or irc channels.) I think there
> should be intake for administrators. So Forums-mods should take the
> developer quiz, as should wiki administrators, pr people, irc ops, bugzilla
> admins, etc.
> 
What possible reason would there be for requiring forum moderators, wiki
administrators, irc ops, people doing PR work, bugzilla administrators,
or anyone else not doing ebuild work, to take the developer quiz set?
All of those positions, when necessary, already use staff recruiting
because detailed knowledge of ebuild development and maintenance is
utterly irrelevant to their work.

If you want to require the full developer quiz set for work on
officially supported overlays, regardless of gentoo.git access, there is
at least a coherent argument to be made. But for positions that involve
no ebuild work, it is at best pointless.

> 
>>
>> If we would want to align Gentoo Project user-types and Foundation, then we
>> are moving the project management into Foundation space a bit. Currently,
>> the Foundation has always tried not to meddle within this. I am not opposed
>> to making things a bit easier for both though (for instance, all staff and
>> developers are automatically Gentoo Foundation members).
>>
> 
> I want to handle foundation membership on a separate thread, if you would ;)
> 
> -A
> 
> 
>>
>> Wkr,
>>         Sven Vermeulen
>>
>>
> 

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

[Dean Stephens]

On 11/07/16 05:59, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 03:32, 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)
>>
>> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have 1
>> contributor type.
> 
> Should not be discussed here since you want to change something mainly
> in the Gentoo Project, not the Gentoo Foundation.
> 
> Incidentally I'd like to know how many are staff and not also developers.
> 
> If you perceive the two roles as a problem the simplest thing is to
> mandate everybody to be a developer.
> 
Having two role description is simply indicative of there being, rather
unsurprisingly, two distinct forms of role being fulfilled. People doing
ebuild work need to have the technical knowledge and oversight to
produce and maintain ebuilds, people who are doing work not involving
ebuilds have no such need.

Call "staff" "developers" if you must, even those who do not actually
work with code at all; but mandating that everyone "be a developer" in
the sense of taking the full quiz set is pointless and fraught with
potential problems. To posit a trivial example, if everyone took the
developer quiz set, would someone who then did no ebuild work at all be
eligible to mentor someone being recruited expressly to do ebuild work
after they had been doing no ebuild work themselves during the year they
needed to accrue sufficient seniority to act as a mentor? If not, why
(formally)? If so... why?

Conversely, you could be making the argument that everyone who is
currently working in a staff role would need to "be a developer" in the
full sense of maintaining at least minimal activity in the tree. In
which case you have effectively forced the retirement everyone who only
has enough time to spare on Gentoo work for their staff role. That seems
rather counterproductive.

> lu
> 
> 
> 

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

[Michael Palimaka]

On 07/11/16 13:32, 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)

That is no longer correct - "staffer" is a thing of the past. These
days, everyone is a developer whether they work on ebuilds or not.

> 
> 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.)


If by contributor you mean a developer who does not work on ebuilds,
this is already the case. Such developers already require a mentor,
complete the historically-named 'staff' quiz, and follow the normal
recruiting process.

> 
> 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.

We already do this. Part of the text a recruiter posts to a
newly-recruited developer's bug is "contact trustees@gentoo.org for
Foundation membership (optional)".

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

This is no change to current practice. Every new developer already is
required to have a mentor, complete a quiz appropriate to what they'll
be working on, and have a 30 day probation period.

> 
> 5) Existing developers and staff are rebranded as contributors.

As there is currently no distinction between different types of
developers, what will be gained by rebranding everyone?

> 
> If approved, I expect a few months of working with comrel to adjust
> existing policy documents and recruiting guidelines to implement.

While I applaud your efforts, the proposal seems to be based on an
outdated picture of the community. Additionally, given our current
metastructure, it's not clear to me how this is even a Foundation issue.

The only thing that needs updating is documentation to reflect the
reality that everyone is a developer, and everyone completes a quiz
appropriate to what they will be working on.

Coincidentally I've already looked into fixing the quizzes. The 'staff'
quiz and the non-technical section of the 'ebuild' quiz are very
similar, so my proposal to recruiters was to:

1) Rename 'staff' quiz to 'developer' quiz
2) Remove non-technical section from the 'ebuild' quiz
3) All developers take the 'developer' quiz, and developers wishing to
work on ebuilds take the 'ebuild' quizzes.

This should be uncontroversial because it's just fixing the semantics to
match reality. There's no change to the actual questions asked by any
given new developer.