Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Tim Schilling]

Hi folks!

Andrew (Mshar) how do you feel about reworking:

> If you know someone who you think should be considered for Individual
Membership or would like to nominate yourself, please fill out this form

.

To something that places more focus on self-nomination, with nominating
others as the alternative such as:

If you would like to apply for Individual Membership, please fill out this
form. You can also nominate others if you know someone who should be
considered.

My reasoning:

   - The use of "apply" rather than "nominate yourself". People are used to
   applying for things for themselves. I imagine fewer nominate themselves for
   things making it less comfortable. I think using language that's more
   comfortable will encourage people.
   - Moving the nomination of others to the end highlights that applying
   for yourself is not the exception flow. Again, this should help encourage
   people to apply.


Thanks for driving this!

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:24 PM Andrew Godwin  wrote:

> Just want to pop in and say these are great ideas - feel free to copy me
> in on any PR if you want extra opinions!
>
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 8:26:28 AM UTC-7 Carlton Gibson wrote:
>
>> Great, Thanks Andrew. No urgency 
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 16:16, Andrew Mshar  wrote:
>>
>>> Will do, Carlton.
>>>
>>> Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in the
>>> PR and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be able
>>> to open it before the end of the week.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey Andrew.

 I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's
 not.
 The source is here:
 https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html
 If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be
 amazing 朗

 Thanks.

 Kind Regards,

 Carlton

 On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen 
 wrote:

> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate
> becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is 
> just
> challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two
> changes to encourage people to join:
>
>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups"  *
>to *"Attending or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*
>.
>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following
>are Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF 
> appoints
>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django 
> community.
>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to
>self-nominate for membership."
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As
>> someone who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an 
>> episode
>> of Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging 
>> and
>> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.
>>
>> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:
>>
>> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some
>>> examples (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:
>>>
>>
>> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means
>> "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part 
>> of
>> the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense 
>> to
>> change to something like:
>>
>> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some
>> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as
>> "service":*
>>
>> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the
>>> update to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to
>>> include anything about the review process?
>>>
>>
>> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility
>> into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I 
>> think
>> having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to
>> put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change
>> if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this 
>> represents
>> an improvement on its own.
>>
>> Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Tim Schilling]

Hi Carlton,

I think I might have been one of those people mentioning the lack of
definition around the membership requirements. It has held me back from
applying (finally sent one in yesterday). Given the process's obscurity
(see below), it's daunting to hit submit.

   - The number of potential qualifiers is open ended.
  - This should remain, unaltered. It makes the application more
  daunting, but it's also encouraging in that any contribution is valid.
  - The degree of involvement per qualifier is not defined.
  - This seems like something that could be done. The review process
  must have a rubric of some sort.
  - There is a valid argument to be made that making statements about
  minimum levels of requirement could lead to a person disputing a
rejection.
  - The review process is not included on the form.
  - Some people will appreciate having more information on how the
  process works.
  - The people who will see this application are not included on the
   form.
  - I know the DSF Board is doing at least part of the approvals (I see
  it in the minutes), but I'm still unsure of who will see the application
  itself. If it's the broader DSF membership, it's uncomfortable
to send all
  of you an advertisement about my involvement in your/our community.
  - There's nothing to help a person decide how to make the decision to
   put yourself out there.
  - Until San Diego I did not have a personal relationship with any DSF
  member, which meant I never sent a DM to an existing DSF member
to ask what
  the process was like for them or if I was qualified.


I think if the form itself were a bit more transparent people will feel
more comfortable sending in an application.

Thanks,
Tim

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:19 AM Carlton Gibson 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew.
>
> Yes. Good question. I'm not immediately sure if there is a better
> description of DSF membership around. 樂
>
> It's meant to be a recognition of contribution to the community, be that
> to the code in django/django, maintaining a  third-party package,
> organising a DjangoCon or community meetup, mentoring, ... — the dots there
> are that the list incompletable, not simply because I'm too lazy to type,
> if that makes sense 
> (These tie roughly to the suggested points for eligibility for being on
> the Steering Committee in Andrew's proposal
>  except without the "and
> you're still engaged" requirement that's also there — once earned, it's
> yours.)
>
> There was some discussion of this at both recent DjangoCons... — there's a
> bit of a gap for people, perhaps like yourself, first getting involved. One
> idea was a more open membership level that anyone interested could take up,
> that would allow easier communication if nothing else. I don't know how
> those discussions will turn out, but stay tuned 
>
> I hope that clarifies a litte?
>
> In any case, Welcome aboard! ⛵️ :) Please reach out if you need any help.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Carlton
>
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 15:48, Andrew Mshar  wrote:
>
>> Along the lines of discussions about redefining requirements for board
>> seats (e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/django-developers/c/FbNaAq3rz6c),
>> I think it would be helpful to clarify what we want from individual members
>> of the DSF here:
>>
>> https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/individual-members/
>>
>> As a non-member who recently made my first contribution to Django, I
>> looked at that page and thought: is that enough for me to be a member? I'm
>> not particularly concerned about my own membership, but rather, this made
>> me realize that the lack of clarity may prevent others from joining who
>> otherwise should.
>>
>> Is there anywhere that we have a more clear outline of what we expect
>> from members both before they join and after? If not, could we have that
>> discussion here to clarify for future members?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/824f1e56-64f1-44e4-9612-dc121c5d3efcn%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> 

Re: Show applied datetime in showmigrations

[Tim Schilling]

I've worked up a solution for 
feedback. https://github.com/tim-schilling/django/pull/1


On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:30:34 AM UTC-6, Tim Schilling wrote:
>
> My idea is to add the applied datetime value to the showmigrations command.
>
> I've run into the case where I'm working on a branch that involves a 
> number of migrations across various apps, but then have to switch to a 
> different branch which has different migrations. It can be troublesome to 
> determine which migrations are new and need to be rolled back. I've 
> recently started looking at the django_migrations table sorted on the 
> applied column to determine which I've run recently. This would make 
> switching between branches involving conflicting migrations easier.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/3411da4b-927b-4aea-8e0b-f3d58bd5402c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Show applied datetime in showmigrations

[Tim Schilling]

Not changing the default output makes a lot of sense. I initially was 
wondering if it should have its own option. Making it an addition to a 
higher verbosity level will work too.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/4f3d3816-94c6-4065-b7ea-8b21bfb3d4e6%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Show applied datetime in showmigrations

[Tim Schilling]

My idea is to add the applied datetime value to the showmigrations command.

I've run into the case where I'm working on a branch that involves a number 
of migrations across various apps, but then have to switch to a different 
branch which has different migrations. It can be troublesome to determine 
which migrations are new and need to be rolled back. I've recently started 
looking at the django_migrations table sorted on the applied column to 
determine which I've run recently. This would make switching between 
branches involving conflicting migrations easier.

Thanks,
Tim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/77e70de0-6418-4294-9135-a30a8a6b4b33%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.