Re: [guadec-list] Training workshops at GUADEC

[Lasse Schuirmann]

Thanks, those are valid points. FWIW I can totally understand if you
do decide against this workshop. It was just like "hey lets do
workshops, who can do some" and this is what I normally do as
workshops so I'm offering it.

2016-04-15 18:53 GMT+02:00 Ekaterina Gerasimova :
> On 15 April 2016 at 21:44, Lasse Schuirmann  
> wrote:
 https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2016/Workshops/ContributeToAnOpenSourceProject
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate it if you made it clear in the title that this workshop is
>>> about contributing *code* to a project.
>>
>> It's not necessarily, our newcomer issues often include documentation
>> problems as well. What is not included is internationalization or not
>> well defined topics as they pose a barrier to learning the workflow
>> which is the main goal.
>>
>> I'd be happy to make the title more clearer if this is still required.
>
> I think it is. You're not including localisation (including
> team-dependent differences), engagement/marketing, documentation (user
> and developer) workflows, cultural barriers, working on/with the
> design team, and other teams and committees.
>
> When we ran one of these workshops, we had about an equal split of
> attendees go to coding, documentation, engagement and marketing.
>
>>> On a more technical note, I think it would be much more valuable to the
>>> GNOME project if the contributions during the workshop were using the GNOME
>>> workflow, to a GNOME-hosted repository.
>>
>> I totally understand that, however I will not be able to offer this
>> workshop with any GNOME repository. We, i.e. the coala community, have
>> taken an extensive effort to provide newcomer friendly issues so
>> newcomers can learn the workflow instead of being confused. I have
>> never seen such an issue in GNOME. (And yes, I know gnome-love, it's
>> still quite a barrier.)
>>
>> I will not offer this workshop with a GNOME repository because quality
>> will suffer. Maybe somebody else can do it if that is an absolute
>> requirement. Our workflow is derived from the GNOME one and features a
>> rebase based process with a linear history.
>>
>> People will learn everything they need for contributing to GNOME and
>> also learn about workflows using by other projects. The goal is
>> specifically *not* about enabling them to contribute to coala but
>> about giving them the knowledge to learn the workflow of any project
>> and having tried out one of the more complicated ones goes a long way
>> for this.
>>
>> If people can contribute to coala they can contribute to GNOME, the
>> only difference is they push the patches with git bz instead to a
>> branch of their fork.
>
> I think that working with Bugzilla rather than pull requests is a
> pretty big difference for someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
> I admit that going from Bugzilla to Phabricator and re-remembering how
> to use github took me a while even though I was pretty confident about
> what I was doing. It's not trivial for someone who isn't used to it.
> Of course, not all GNOME projects use git-bz at all.
>
> Some other differences in workflow that I see here are that… GNOME
> uses IRC, getting access to git is tricky, workflow tends to change
> when one gets git access, there are other teams that developers pretty
> much must talk to, no pull requests, no automatically run tests or
> builds before merging/any automated builds are run after, and so on.
>
> In my experience, the biggest barrier to actually starting
> contributing is understanding our infrastructure and setting up
> accounts. Together with the workflow differences, I believe that this
> would be too different from contributing to coala to be much help
> specifically for GNOME.
>
> Another thing that we've done previously, is poll the attendees for
> their programming language preference for the workshop (if I remember
> correctly, it's always been python) and set up mentors so we can say
> things like "if you get stuck with finding the right person to talk to
> or need help figuring out how to start, you can ping Rupert and Wanda
> in #gnome-hackers for help", which wouldn't make as much sense if
> coala is the example project.
>
> I'm sure that coala is an easier project to contribute to than GNOME,
> but I'm not convinced that a coala-based workshop is what would be
> wanted at GUADEC rather than a GNOME one, but that's not up to me to
> decide. I was mostly surprised to see a proposal for coala.
>
>> I hope this helps understanding.
>>
>> Lasse
>>
 2016-04-12 14:41 GMT+02:00 Ekaterina Gerasimova :
 > On 12 April 2016 at 17:49, Benjamin Berg 
 > wrote:
 >> On Di, 2016-04-12 at 12:39 +0200, Lasse Schuirmann wrote:
 >>> Btw. can't you add a "Workshop" type of thing to the CfP system? One
 >>> thing
 >>> to rule them all, would be easier...
 >>
 >> Yeah, it would be more consistent. I am not sure it would 

Re: [guadec-list] Training workshops at GUADEC

[Ekaterina Gerasimova]

On 15 April 2016 at 21:44, Lasse Schuirmann  wrote:
>>> https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2016/Workshops/ContributeToAnOpenSourceProject
>>
>> I'd appreciate it if you made it clear in the title that this workshop is
>> about contributing *code* to a project.
>
> It's not necessarily, our newcomer issues often include documentation
> problems as well. What is not included is internationalization or not
> well defined topics as they pose a barrier to learning the workflow
> which is the main goal.
>
> I'd be happy to make the title more clearer if this is still required.

I think it is. You're not including localisation (including
team-dependent differences), engagement/marketing, documentation (user
and developer) workflows, cultural barriers, working on/with the
design team, and other teams and committees.

When we ran one of these workshops, we had about an equal split of
attendees go to coding, documentation, engagement and marketing.

>> On a more technical note, I think it would be much more valuable to the
>> GNOME project if the contributions during the workshop were using the GNOME
>> workflow, to a GNOME-hosted repository.
>
> I totally understand that, however I will not be able to offer this
> workshop with any GNOME repository. We, i.e. the coala community, have
> taken an extensive effort to provide newcomer friendly issues so
> newcomers can learn the workflow instead of being confused. I have
> never seen such an issue in GNOME. (And yes, I know gnome-love, it's
> still quite a barrier.)
>
> I will not offer this workshop with a GNOME repository because quality
> will suffer. Maybe somebody else can do it if that is an absolute
> requirement. Our workflow is derived from the GNOME one and features a
> rebase based process with a linear history.
>
> People will learn everything they need for contributing to GNOME and
> also learn about workflows using by other projects. The goal is
> specifically *not* about enabling them to contribute to coala but
> about giving them the knowledge to learn the workflow of any project
> and having tried out one of the more complicated ones goes a long way
> for this.
>
> If people can contribute to coala they can contribute to GNOME, the
> only difference is they push the patches with git bz instead to a
> branch of their fork.

I think that working with Bugzilla rather than pull requests is a
pretty big difference for someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
I admit that going from Bugzilla to Phabricator and re-remembering how
to use github took me a while even though I was pretty confident about
what I was doing. It's not trivial for someone who isn't used to it.
Of course, not all GNOME projects use git-bz at all.

Some other differences in workflow that I see here are that… GNOME
uses IRC, getting access to git is tricky, workflow tends to change
when one gets git access, there are other teams that developers pretty
much must talk to, no pull requests, no automatically run tests or
builds before merging/any automated builds are run after, and so on.

In my experience, the biggest barrier to actually starting
contributing is understanding our infrastructure and setting up
accounts. Together with the workflow differences, I believe that this
would be too different from contributing to coala to be much help
specifically for GNOME.

Another thing that we've done previously, is poll the attendees for
their programming language preference for the workshop (if I remember
correctly, it's always been python) and set up mentors so we can say
things like "if you get stuck with finding the right person to talk to
or need help figuring out how to start, you can ping Rupert and Wanda
in #gnome-hackers for help", which wouldn't make as much sense if
coala is the example project.

I'm sure that coala is an easier project to contribute to than GNOME,
but I'm not convinced that a coala-based workshop is what would be
wanted at GUADEC rather than a GNOME one, but that's not up to me to
decide. I was mostly surprised to see a proposal for coala.

> I hope this helps understanding.
>
> Lasse
>
>>> 2016-04-12 14:41 GMT+02:00 Ekaterina Gerasimova :
>>> > On 12 April 2016 at 17:49, Benjamin Berg 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> On Di, 2016-04-12 at 12:39 +0200, Lasse Schuirmann wrote:
>>> >>> Btw. can't you add a "Workshop" type of thing to the CfP system? One
>>> >>> thing
>>> >>> to rule them all, would be easier...
>>> >>
>>> >> Yeah, it would be more consistent. I am not sure it would simplify
>>> >> matters a lot from an organizational point of view though. So right
>>> >> now, I doubt that it is worth the trouble.
>>> >
>>> > I don't think it's a good idea for the moment. Workshops and talks are
>>> > quite different with different requirements in terms of things to
>>> > consider when picking out good ones and who is a good person to pick
>>> > them out.
>>> >
>>> >> Benjamin
>>> >>
>>> >>> Sincerely,

Re: [guadec-list] Training workshops at GUADEC

[Lasse Schuirmann]

>> https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2016/Workshops/ContributeToAnOpenSourceProject
>
> I'd appreciate it if you made it clear in the title that this workshop is
> about contributing *code* to a project.

It's not necessarily, our newcomer issues often include documentation
problems as well. What is not included is internationalization or not
well defined topics as they pose a barrier to learning the workflow
which is the main goal.

I'd be happy to make the title more clearer if this is still required.

> On a more technical note, I think it would be much more valuable to the
> GNOME project if the contributions during the workshop were using the GNOME
> workflow, to a GNOME-hosted repository.

I totally understand that, however I will not be able to offer this
workshop with any GNOME repository. We, i.e. the coala community, have
taken an extensive effort to provide newcomer friendly issues so
newcomers can learn the workflow instead of being confused. I have
never seen such an issue in GNOME. (And yes, I know gnome-love, it's
still quite a barrier.)

I will not offer this workshop with a GNOME repository because quality
will suffer. Maybe somebody else can do it if that is an absolute
requirement. Our workflow is derived from the GNOME one and features a
rebase based process with a linear history.

People will learn everything they need for contributing to GNOME and
also learn about workflows using by other projects. The goal is
specifically *not* about enabling them to contribute to coala but
about giving them the knowledge to learn the workflow of any project
and having tried out one of the more complicated ones goes a long way
for this.

If people can contribute to coala they can contribute to GNOME, the
only difference is they push the patches with git bz instead to a
branch of their fork.

I hope this helps understanding.

Lasse

>> 2016-04-12 14:41 GMT+02:00 Ekaterina Gerasimova :
>> > On 12 April 2016 at 17:49, Benjamin Berg 
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Di, 2016-04-12 at 12:39 +0200, Lasse Schuirmann wrote:
>> >>> Btw. can't you add a "Workshop" type of thing to the CfP system? One
>> >>> thing
>> >>> to rule them all, would be easier...
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it would be more consistent. I am not sure it would simplify
>> >> matters a lot from an organizational point of view though. So right
>> >> now, I doubt that it is worth the trouble.
>> >
>> > I don't think it's a good idea for the moment. Workshops and talks are
>> > quite different with different requirements in terms of things to
>> > consider when picking out good ones and who is a good person to pick
>> > them out.
>> >
>> >> Benjamin
>> >>
>> >>> Sincerely,
>> >>>
>> >>> Lasse Schuirmann
>> >>>
>> >>> cont...@viperdev.io
>> >>> http://viperdev.io/
>> >>>
>> >>> 2016-04-12 12:13 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Berg :
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hi,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Di, 2016-04-12 at 11:45 +0200, Lasse Schuirmann wrote:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > I'd certainly still be interested but won't have the time to
>> >>> > > coordinate
>> >>> > > everything around this as always. GSoC's going crazy right now
>> >>> > > and I'm
>> >>> > > doing stuff for too many orgs here.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > I hope I can work out a few rough proposals, post them here and
>> >>> > > let you
>> >>> > > choose which you like so I can refine.
>> >>> > OK, someone will need to make a couple of executive decisions
>> >>> > though,
>> >>> > as I won't be the person actually doing the workshops. :)
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > I think a few questions are missing for the workshops IMO:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > - How long should the workshop take? (Half day, day, two days
>> >>> > > possible?)
>> >>> > It is planned for 1 full day right now (i.e. August 11th).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > - What should participants be able to do after the workshop.
>> >>> > > (Helps
>> >>> > setting
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > expectations right and usually also helps planning very much.)
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Few organizational questiosn:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > - Do we have any idea about the target audience? Very important
>> >>> > > for
>> >>> > > workshop holders to know.
>> >>> > I am totally fine with you deciding on the exact audience.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Ideally, I think it would be nice to have something that targets
>> >>> > (local)
>> >>> > students who are interested in free software and hopefully GNOME.
>> >>> > So my
>> >>> > guess is that it makes sense to expect some prior knowledge, but
>> >>> > not much
>> >>> > actual experience (e.g. they know what git is, but have never send
>> >>> > a patch
>> >>> > upstream).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > - Will you be able to organize material locally? That usually
>> >>> > > includes
>> >>> > lots
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > and lots of sticky notes and threeish pieces of custom printed
>> >>> > > paper per
>> >>> > > participant. A projector with a few adaptors.
>> >>> > Sorry, I didn't 

Re: [guadec-list] Training workshops at GUADEC

[Ekaterina Gerasimova]

On 15 Apr 2016 7:49 p.m., "Lasse Schuirmann" 
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm hereby proposing this workshop:
>
https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2016/Workshops/ContributeToAnOpenSourceProject

I'd appreciate it if you made it clear in the title that this workshop is
about contributing *code* to a project.

There is a very big misconception that coding is the only way to contribute
to Free software. We should not encouraged it, especially as GNOME as a
project really lacks contributions in other areas. Also, we've used similar
titles for workshops about contributing to all areas.

On a more technical note, I think it would be much more valuable to the
GNOME project if the contributions during the workshop were using the GNOME
workflow, to a GNOME-hosted repository.

> Lasse
> Sincerely,
>
> Lasse Schuirmann
>
> cont...@viperdev.io
> http://viperdev.io/
>
>
> 2016-04-12 14:41 GMT+02:00 Ekaterina Gerasimova :
> > On 12 April 2016 at 17:49, Benjamin Berg 
wrote:
> >> On Di, 2016-04-12 at 12:39 +0200, Lasse Schuirmann wrote:
> >>> Btw. can't you add a "Workshop" type of thing to the CfP system? One
thing
> >>> to rule them all, would be easier...
> >>
> >> Yeah, it would be more consistent. I am not sure it would simplify
> >> matters a lot from an organizational point of view though. So right
> >> now, I doubt that it is worth the trouble.
> >
> > I don't think it's a good idea for the moment. Workshops and talks are
> > quite different with different requirements in terms of things to
> > consider when picking out good ones and who is a good person to pick
> > them out.
> >
> >> Benjamin
> >>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>> Lasse Schuirmann
> >>>
> >>> cont...@viperdev.io
> >>> http://viperdev.io/
> >>>
> >>> 2016-04-12 12:13 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Berg :
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> > On Di, 2016-04-12 at 11:45 +0200, Lasse Schuirmann wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I'd certainly still be interested but won't have the time to
> >>> > > coordinate
> >>> > > everything around this as always. GSoC's going crazy right now
> >>> > > and I'm
> >>> > > doing stuff for too many orgs here.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I hope I can work out a few rough proposals, post them here and
> >>> > > let you
> >>> > > choose which you like so I can refine.
> >>> > OK, someone will need to make a couple of executive decisions
> >>> > though,
> >>> > as I won't be the person actually doing the workshops. :)
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I think a few questions are missing for the workshops IMO:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > - How long should the workshop take? (Half day, day, two days
> >>> > > possible?)
> >>> > It is planned for 1 full day right now (i.e. August 11th).
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > - What should participants be able to do after the workshop.
> >>> > > (Helps
> >>> > setting
> >>> > >
> >>> > > expectations right and usually also helps planning very much.)
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Few organizational questiosn:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > - Do we have any idea about the target audience? Very important
> >>> > > for
> >>> > > workshop holders to know.
> >>> > I am totally fine with you deciding on the exact audience.
> >>> >
> >>> > Ideally, I think it would be nice to have something that targets
> >>> > (local)
> >>> > students who are interested in free software and hopefully GNOME.
> >>> > So my
> >>> > guess is that it makes sense to expect some prior knowledge, but
> >>> > not much
> >>> > actual experience (e.g. they know what git is, but have never send
> >>> > a patch
> >>> > upstream).
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > - Will you be able to organize material locally? That usually
> >>> > > includes
> >>> > lots
> >>> > >
> >>> > > and lots of sticky notes and threeish pieces of custom printed
> >>> > > paper per
> >>> > > participant. A projector with a few adaptors.
> >>> > Sorry, I didn't forward that list to you. We will provide a seminar
> >>> > room with the following:
> >>> >  * projector
> >>> >  * blackboard
> >>> >  * WiFi and 1-2 LAN ports
> >>> >  * multiway power extensions (1 socket per person)
> >>> >  * chairs/tables
> >>> >
> >>> > Adaptors are on my todo list to check and ping later. Anything else
> >>> > should be requested so we can organize something.
> >>> >
> >>> > Didn't think about paper/sticky notes before, sounds sensible to
> >>> > include that for all workshops.
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > - Are there tables, arrangeable for group work?
> >>> > Yes.
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > - For longer workshops, at least some water would be nice to
> >>> > > prohibit
> >>> > > dehydration.
> >>> > Good point. Noted.
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > - It'd be great to have a BoF related or accompanying every
> >>> > > workshop. A
> >>> > > very critical point is to get people to try out the stuff even
> >>> > > after the
> >>> > > actual workshop. Knowing a place where they can come and hack
> >>> > > *and ask*
> >>> > > would be awesome. IMO 

Re: [guadec-list] Training workshops at GUADEC

[Lasse Schuirmann]

Hi,

I'm hereby proposing this workshop:
https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2016/Workshops/ContributeToAnOpenSourceProject

Lasse
Sincerely,

Lasse Schuirmann

cont...@viperdev.io
http://viperdev.io/


2016-04-12 14:41 GMT+02:00 Ekaterina Gerasimova :
> On 12 April 2016 at 17:49, Benjamin Berg  wrote:
>> On Di, 2016-04-12 at 12:39 +0200, Lasse Schuirmann wrote:
>>> Btw. can't you add a "Workshop" type of thing to the CfP system? One thing
>>> to rule them all, would be easier...
>>
>> Yeah, it would be more consistent. I am not sure it would simplify
>> matters a lot from an organizational point of view though. So right
>> now, I doubt that it is worth the trouble.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea for the moment. Workshops and talks are
> quite different with different requirements in terms of things to
> consider when picking out good ones and who is a good person to pick
> them out.
>
>> Benjamin
>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Lasse Schuirmann
>>>
>>> cont...@viperdev.io
>>> http://viperdev.io/
>>>
>>> 2016-04-12 12:13 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Berg :
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > On Di, 2016-04-12 at 11:45 +0200, Lasse Schuirmann wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > I'd certainly still be interested but won't have the time to
>>> > > coordinate
>>> > > everything around this as always. GSoC's going crazy right now
>>> > > and I'm
>>> > > doing stuff for too many orgs here.
>>> > >
>>> > > I hope I can work out a few rough proposals, post them here and
>>> > > let you
>>> > > choose which you like so I can refine.
>>> > OK, someone will need to make a couple of executive decisions
>>> > though,
>>> > as I won't be the person actually doing the workshops. :)
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > I think a few questions are missing for the workshops IMO:
>>> > >
>>> > > - How long should the workshop take? (Half day, day, two days
>>> > > possible?)
>>> > It is planned for 1 full day right now (i.e. August 11th).
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > - What should participants be able to do after the workshop.
>>> > > (Helps
>>> > setting
>>> > >
>>> > > expectations right and usually also helps planning very much.)
>>> > >
>>> > > Few organizational questiosn:
>>> > >
>>> > > - Do we have any idea about the target audience? Very important
>>> > > for
>>> > > workshop holders to know.
>>> > I am totally fine with you deciding on the exact audience.
>>> >
>>> > Ideally, I think it would be nice to have something that targets
>>> > (local)
>>> > students who are interested in free software and hopefully GNOME.
>>> > So my
>>> > guess is that it makes sense to expect some prior knowledge, but
>>> > not much
>>> > actual experience (e.g. they know what git is, but have never send
>>> > a patch
>>> > upstream).
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > - Will you be able to organize material locally? That usually
>>> > > includes
>>> > lots
>>> > >
>>> > > and lots of sticky notes and threeish pieces of custom printed
>>> > > paper per
>>> > > participant. A projector with a few adaptors.
>>> > Sorry, I didn't forward that list to you. We will provide a seminar
>>> > room with the following:
>>> >  * projector
>>> >  * blackboard
>>> >  * WiFi and 1-2 LAN ports
>>> >  * multiway power extensions (1 socket per person)
>>> >  * chairs/tables
>>> >
>>> > Adaptors are on my todo list to check and ping later. Anything else
>>> > should be requested so we can organize something.
>>> >
>>> > Didn't think about paper/sticky notes before, sounds sensible to
>>> > include that for all workshops.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > - Are there tables, arrangeable for group work?
>>> > Yes.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > - For longer workshops, at least some water would be nice to
>>> > > prohibit
>>> > > dehydration.
>>> > Good point. Noted.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > - It'd be great to have a BoF related or accompanying every
>>> > > workshop. A
>>> > > very critical point is to get people to try out the stuff even
>>> > > after the
>>> > > actual workshop. Knowing a place where they can come and hack
>>> > > *and ask*
>>> > > would be awesome. IMO we should encourage workshoppers to
>>> > > organize a BoF.
>>> > Oh, that is a good idea and easy to implement.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > - Would be nice to have feedback sheets so we can measure the
>>> > > success and
>>> > > impact of the workshops. This is one big experiement so let's not
>>> > > forget
>>> > > gathering data.
>>> > Interesting, thought. For whatever reason I hadn't considered that
>>> > yet,
>>> > even though I have done exactly the same thing for other events.
>>> >
>>> > Added it to my list. Biggest task is to figure out the questions to
>>> > put
>>> > on the sheets.
>>> >
>>> > Benjamin
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Sincerely,
>>> > >
>>> > > Lasse Schuirmann
>>> > >
>>> > > cont...@viperdev.io
>>> > > http://viperdev.io/
>>> > >
>>> > > 2016-04-12 11:30 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Berg >> > > et>:
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Hey,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Mi,