On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Andrey Andreev <n...@devilix.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Sharon Levy <iam4webw...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > From: Andrey Andreev <n...@devilix.net> > > Sent: Sep 29, 2014 3:01 PM > > To: Sharon Levy <sle...@pipeline.com> > > Cc: Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com>, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net>, > Andrea > > Faulds <a...@ajf.me>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net> > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is it fair that people with no karma can vote on > > RFCs? > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Sharon Levy <sle...@pipeline.com> > wrote: > > > >> >> I think in all fairness, users should be required to learn C and > pass a > >> >> test > >> >> demonstrating basic knowledge of PHP's internals in order to acquire > >> >> voting > >> >> privileges. > >> > > >> >So, in order to vote, users should become (capable of being) core > >> >contributors? :) > >> >How does that change anything? > >> > > >> >Cheers, > >> >Andrey. > > > > "... the important truths, that knolege is power, that knolege is safety, > > and that knolege is happiness." -- Thomas Jefferson > > > > If more users were educated about PHP's internals, then there could be > more > > substantive discussions between Userland and core contributors, including > > better ideas originating from Userland. More users might even consider > > becoming core contributors. It would change the status quo. > > > > Well, let's see ... what is the current status quo? > > Currently, all voters have VCS accounts, meaning that they already are > at least one of: > > a) C code contributors > b) documentation contributors > c) contributing to the php.net website or something else but similar > > It is written somewhere that maintainers of popular userland > frameworks and tools _could_ get voting privileges, but the voters > from this group are voters because they already have VCS accounts for > other purposes. It is otherwise undefined how that happens - this is > as close as you can get to the meaning of "status quo" as far as > userland people are concerned. > > What this basically means is that currently you ARE required to either > know C and PHP's internals, or to take care of all the not really fun > (for a programmer) stuff that surrounds it. > It that hasn't encouraged more people to contribute, how would taking > away non-C-contributors' votes be an encouragement? If I was a php-doc > contributor, that would be you showing me the middle finger, not > encouragement. > > Sure, it would change the status quo, but for the worse. > > Cheers, > Andrey. > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > +1 I agree completely. This discussion has raised another issue though that I think merits further consideration: What standards do we use to give VCS accounts-- or karma, for that matter. As many have pointed out already, we don't currently have a consistent, quantifiable standard for either of these. This can lead to some people getting VCS creds who may not have actually done anything to merit that, at least according to some people here. Likewise, there is no specific standard for giving people karma; just a vague understanding that those who contribute "enough" will eventually maybe get it. If you want to tackle the problem of new people not being motivated to contribute, that's probably the #1 (or maybe #2, behind the steep learning curve) reason why there's an absense of fresh faces submitting code. As someone who has been a project manager over the years, I can tell you that nothing motivates people more than giving them set goals to achieve and rewards for achieving them. For example, if you contribute x number of patches, resolve y number of bugs, z number of pull requests, etc, you'll qualify for basic karma. That would provide a quantifiable incentive and I guarantee you we'll get people who will start contributing in order to meet that goal and get that feather in their cap. Right now, most people don't even know who grants karma, how to request it, or when it's appropriate to request it. The current, "Just contribute steadily over time and we'll see" message may have the advantage of giving us greater discretion, but it does nothing to motivate people to participate. As far as VCS access goes, having specific metrics like that probably wouldn't be feasible since it's much more of a case-by-case basis sorta thing. We could establish some general guidelines, though. To prevent VCS accounts from being given out frivolously, as some have complained, I suggest we treat each qualifying VCS request as an RFC. The person ("sponsor"?) who thinks they should be added adds an RFC, outlining the person's experience and why s/he qualifies for VCS access. Then we vote and simple majority wins. I think it would be beneficial for us to draft an RFC that establishes these changes. That way, we can address the concerns raised by those who believe that VCS-- and, with it, voting rights-- is being given out too easily, while also maintaining the inclusiveness of the current voting system. It would also have the added benefit of encouraging more people to contribute. When people like me live such busy lives and spend all day writing code at work, that little bit of incentive really helps. Thoughts? --Kris
