On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-12-07 19:21 GMT+01:00 Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org>: >>> == Step 2: Bug Triage Permission == >>> >>> Once a contributor becomes active enough, a core developer can propose >>> to give the bug triage permission to the contributor. >> >> It sounds like you are not taking into account what was said by various >> people during the previous discussion. > > I did, but I'm not sure that you (Antoine and others) understand > properly my intent. > > Please see the reply that I just sent on the other "Requirements to > get the "bug triage" permission?" thread. > > >>> == Step 3: Getting a mentor == >>> >>> Python project is big and has a long history. Contributors need a >>> referrer to guide them in this wild and dangerous (!) project, and in >>> the development workflow. >> >> Perhaps you are overdoing this? :-) > > Maybe, who knows? :-) > > >>> Required mentor skills: >>> >>> * Be a core contributor. >>> * Be available at least during one whole month. >>> * Follow the contributor: must get an update at least once a week, >>> especially if the contributor doesn't show up. >> >> I'm afraid these requirements may make the process actually harder than >> it currently is. What if there is no potential mentor available? This >> reminds of the Google Summer of Code... > > I would lie if I would say that being a mentor is a trivial task that > doesn't take any time. But from what I hear around me, mentoring the > *key* difference to train faster motivated contributors. >
In my experience, contributors that get promoted to core devs are usually already experienced, but they might not be familiar with all the quirks of CPython development and they will likely have a few CPython-specific questions. When I became a core dev I don't remember having an official mentor. I had several different questions (should I backport this to Python 2.3? how do I use svnmerge? how do I create a wide unicode debug build? which rst role should I use to document X?) and always received a timely reply from several different people, depending on who was available and their main area of expertise (also note that there was no devguide back then :). In my opinion, the role of the mentor should boil down to: 1) be a reference for the new core dev and be available in case everything else fails (e.g. if no one else answers a question); 2) be responsible for the mistakes the new core dev might make (e.g. help fixing up a bad merge or a broken buildbot caused by the new core dev). The mentor shouldn't babysit the new core dev and be in the only point of contact. The new core dev should: 1) interact with the other core devs and the community in general; 2) reach to the mentor only when necessary (i.e. no one else replied, something import/urgent/"personal"). For GSoC the situation is different: 1) GSoC students have to work on a specific project with specific goals, requirements, and deadlines; 2) GSoC students are usually less experience and need to be followed, guided, and sometimes pushed; 3) Given its breadth and maturity, CPython itself is not a particularly good candidate for GSoC projects. Best Regards, Ezio Melotti > A single people cannot be the mentor of too many contributors at the > same time. The bootstrap is going to be hard :-( > > > Oh, if you didn't see it yet, I strongly suggest to watch Mariatta > Wijaya's talk about mentoring at the last Pycon US: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc1krFb5ifQ > > She explained that mentoring is also valuable for the mentor! It goes > in both directions. > > > Another option is the idea proposed in parenthesis, that contributors > mentor them each other. I wouldn't count as the official required > mentoring, but it would help anyway. I think that it is already > happening right now on the core-mentorship mailing list, helping each > other. > > > In the past, I mentored Xavier De Gaye and Xiang Zhang during one > month *after* they became core developers. Honestly, it took me less > than one hour per week. Ok, maybe they are not the best examples of > contributors, since they already had a good background. But I'm not > less afraid of being a mentor ;-) > > The "Step 3: Getting a mentor" isn't the first step just after "Step > 0: Newcomers". The expectation is that the contributor already knows > enough about Python workflow and code, before getting a mentor. > > For steps before the step 3, there is already the core-mentorship > mailing list. IMHO this list is working well as intended. People who > reply are kind, take time to explain, and contributors usually get a > reply quickly. Bonus point: multiple core developers can be found > there and actually answer, including Guido van Rossum! > > Mariatta got Guido van Rossum as a mentor (and also Raymond Hettinger > if I understood correctly) and it was very successful, she became > "quickly" a core developer and she is now involved in many parts of > the Python development! (Sorry Mariatta to "use you" as an example!) > I'm taking Mariatta as a concrete example of the success of mentoring. > > Victor > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
