On 8/21/07, Daniel Holbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought some more about the topic after various discussions with > people. <...> > Some things we would generally like to see happening: > * Contributors should use the 'official sponsoring process' as > soon as possible.
Should Contributors ever not use the 'official sponsoring process'? I've yet to encounter a Contributor, whether with a mentor or without, that was willing to follow the process, especially where their mentor was otherwise occupied (or did not have access, in the case of patches for main) (although there is certainly frustration when there are significant delays in uploads). <...> > In my opinion the time is best spent to make new contributors > comfortable with the processes, people and some tools. The general > review and Q&A we should be done by the complete MOTU team for a couple > of reasons: > > * New contributors get to know a lot of different people - that's > important. > * New contributors get more input from various people. > * We are able to process much more contributors as a team. I'd like to strongly encourage all of the above, and also note that the greater visibility from team interaction additinally provides the following benefits: * Contributors have an easier time demonstrating packaging skills * Sponsors can benefit from team review when there are questions * Contributors demonstrate effective community participation > With these efforts new contributors should also spend less time in the > mentoring slots. Is this a goal? I can see two different purposes of mentoring, and I'm not sure which is the consensus understanding from the above. In one case, the mentor coordinates with the newcomer, helping them to become a Contributor, actively engaged in the development process. In the other case, the mentor coordinates with either a newcomer or Contributor, and helps them to become a MOTU, responsible for driving the development of universe and multiverse. If the goal is the first, I think that in most cases, a motivated newcomer can become a valuable Contributor within a fairly short period of time, but I'm not sure the process to become MOTU can happen as quickly. I've had private discussions with a few Contributors, helping to develop a plan towards becoming MOTU (in terms of balancing demonstrating technical skills, community involvement, and demonstration of development goals; combined with persistance and demonstration of committment), and I have the impression that many Contributors do not know either how to progress towards MOTU, nor what activities will be considered helpful by the existing community. Personally, I believe that both newcomer -> Contributor and Contributor -> MOTU are areas where personal involvement from a MOTU can be assistive, beyond the typical information availably on the wiki, via IRC, or on the mailing list. In the first case, because the volume of information is daunting, and the quality extremely variable. In the second case because there is no (and perhaps cannot be) any documentation on the specific criteria by which the prospective is judged. Perhaps mentors could volunteer to assist with either of these transitions (or split slots between them). This would allow for faster turnover of slots, as the Contributor often does not need as much personal attention once basic patching and packaging has been mastered, but before they are ready for application to MOTU. -- Emmet HIKORY -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu