FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Documentation

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-23-2011, 07:49 PM
Sven Vermeulen
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 08:52:46AM +0000, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Documentation developers are also developers, but they do not need to be an
> ebuild-developer. If I look at the GDP current staffing, there are 8
> developers that are also ebuild developers (or infrastructure or another
> function within Gentoo) and 11 developers on the documentation (and
> translations) only.
>
> Requiring documentation developers to also take the ebuild and end quiz
> would be overshooting, as that is not something they require.

Okay, I have a suggestion for the Gentoo Documentation Project Policy. The
suggested document can be found at [1], the diff output at [2].

[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/docs/previews/doc-policy.xml
[2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/docs/previews/doc-policy.txt

Feedback is, as always, very much appreciated. Joshua, especially from you
(I definitely do not want to touch that guide without your blessing ;-)

Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
 
Old 09-24-2011, 12:22 AM
Joshua Saddler
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:49:25 +0000
Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Okay, I have a suggestion for the Gentoo Documentation Project
> Policy. The suggested document can be found at [1], the diff output
> at [2].
>
> [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/docs/previews/doc-policy.xml
> [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/docs/previews/doc-policy.txt
>
> Feedback is, as always, very much appreciated. Joshua, especially
> from you (I definitely do not want to touch that guide without your
> blessing ;-)

Thanks for the draft! From a quick run-through of the patch (much
obliged for that, thanks), it seems pretty good.

The major differences to the original doc are:

1. Doing away with the Strategic/Operational lead split. We haven't
had two people doing those jobs in 5 years, anyway.

2. Translation project leads and "official" language status. Any
comments as to the changes here?

3. Join-up process. No formal "X number of contributions per period
Y." Works well enough for me, but then "how much does this potential
recruit actually do for us" becomes subjective hand-waving. We would
need a new metric to determine commitment over time. Ideas?

Anyway, if you can clarify your thinking on these 3 points, just so I
know where you're coming from, I'm fine with the proposed update.

How about the other GDP members -- any thoughts from the rest of you?
 
Old 09-24-2011, 06:39 AM
Sven Vermeulen
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 05:22:37PM -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> Thanks for the draft! From a quick run-through of the patch (much
> obliged for that, thanks), it seems pretty good.
>
> The major differences to the original doc are:
>
> 1. Doing away with the Strategic/Operational lead split. We haven't
> had two people doing those jobs in 5 years, anyway.

Yup, most - if not all - other projects are based on a project lead and lots
of minions, so this was a fairly obvious change imo.

> 2. Translation project leads and "official" language status. Any
> comments as to the changes here?

Sure. I wanted to make it a bit less formal without lowering the
requirements. Now, the document sais that a language should be backed up by
a translation team where at least one member (the translation project lead)
has commit access. If this isn't the case, then it is an "unsupported" language
where the documents are still published, but not linked.

> 3. Join-up process. No formal "X number of contributions per period
> Y." Works well enough for me, but then "how much does this potential
> recruit actually do for us" becomes subjective hand-waving. We would
> need a new metric to determine commitment over time. Ideas?

I'm not sure we need one. Imo, the GDP project lead decides when phase 2
starts (and as such when a mentor is assigned). From then onwards, it is the
mentor who is in charge of defining when the recruitment can be started.

If we need a more objective metric to start with, I'd rather do it on
timeframe ("... sufficient document changes over a term of at least 4
months"), which holds twice then (first and second phase).

After all, developers that have been less or inactive for some time are
slated to be retired anyhow, either fully (from the Gentoo project) or from
the GDP (removal of the GDP page and perhaps cvsdoc commit rights).

Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
 
Old 09-25-2011, 01:22 AM
Joshua Saddler
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:39:41 +0200
Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > 2. Translation project leads and "official" language status. Any
> > comments as to the changes here?
>
> Sure. I wanted to make it a bit less formal without lowering the
> requirements. Now, the document sais that a language should be
> backed up by a translation team where at least one member (the
> translation project lead) has commit access. If this isn't the
> case, then it is an "unsupported" language where the documents are
> still published, but not linked.

Fine with me; I assume the translators are okay with this, too.

> > 3. Join-up process. No formal "X number of contributions per
> > period Y." Works well enough for me, but then "how much does this
> > potential recruit actually do for us" becomes subjective
> > hand-waving. We would need a new metric to determine commitment
> > over time. Ideas?
>
> I'm not sure we need one. Imo, the GDP project lead decides when
> phase 2 starts (and as such when a mentor is assigned). From then
> onwards, it is the mentor who is in charge of defining when the
> recruitment can be started.
>
> If we need a more objective metric to start with, I'd rather do it
> on timeframe ("... sufficient document changes over a term of at
> least 4 months"), which holds twice then (first and second phase).
>
> After all, developers that have been less or inactive for some time
> are slated to be retired anyhow, either fully (from the Gentoo
> project) or from the GDP (removal of the GDP page and perhaps
> cvsdoc commit rights).

This makes sense.

Alright, commit the thing. I like it.
 
Old 09-25-2011, 06:41 PM
Chema Alonso
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 06:22:34PM -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:39:41 +0200
> Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > > 2. Translation project leads and "official" language status. Any
> > > comments as to the changes here?
> >
> > Sure. I wanted to make it a bit less formal without lowering the
> > requirements. Now, the document sais that a language should be
> > backed up by a translation team where at least one member (the
> > translation project lead) has commit access. If this isn't the
> > case, then it is an "unsupported" language where the documents are
> > still published, but not linked.
>
> Fine with me; I assume the translators are okay with this, too.
>

Ok with this. The draft looks fine to me.

Thanks!

> > > 3. Join-up process. No formal "X number of contributions per
> > > period Y." Works well enough for me, but then "how much does this
> > > potential recruit actually do for us" becomes subjective
> > > hand-waving. We would need a new metric to determine commitment
> > > over time. Ideas?
> >
> > I'm not sure we need one. Imo, the GDP project lead decides when
> > phase 2 starts (and as such when a mentor is assigned). From then
> > onwards, it is the mentor who is in charge of defining when the
> > recruitment can be started.
> >
> > If we need a more objective metric to start with, I'd rather do it
> > on timeframe ("... sufficient document changes over a term of at
> > least 4 months"), which holds twice then (first and second phase).
> >
> > After all, developers that have been less or inactive for some time
> > are slated to be retired anyhow, either fully (from the Gentoo
> > project) or from the GDP (removal of the GDP page and perhaps
> > cvsdoc commit rights).
>
> This makes sense.
>
> Alright, commit the thing. I like it.
 
Old 09-27-2011, 06:05 PM
Sven Vermeulen
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

Thank you all for reviewing. I've committed the document in CVS.

Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
 
Old 09-28-2011, 02:49 PM
Camille Huot
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

Hey, sorry for my late feedback,
"""The Gentoo Documentation Project Team consists of editors and authors, workingon our main documentation and its translations. Like most other Gentoo projects,
it is lead by a project lead whose additional job is to look after the team andits resources in general (such as focusing on recruitment when necessary andacting as an unbiased mediator when two or more developers have a dispute over
something)."""
I don't like the end "acting as an unbiased mediator when two or more developers have a dispute oversomething", we're not childs that need to be calm down -- Here's my suggested drop-in: "taking final decisions when consensus cannot be found otherwise."

(I also spotted a typo: it is lead -> it is led)
I can commit the changes if you're fine.
Best,Camille Huot
 
Old 09-28-2011, 06:13 PM
Sven Vermeulen
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 04:49:53PM +0200, Camille Huot wrote:
> Hey, sorry for my late feedback,

No problem.

> """
> The Gentoo Documentation Project Team consists of editors and authors,
> working
> on our main documentation and its translations. Like most other Gentoo
> projects,
> it is lead by a project lead whose additional job is to look after the team
> and
> its resources in general (such as focusing on recruitment when necessary and
> acting as an unbiased mediator when two or more developers have a dispute
> over
> something).
> """
>
> I don't like the end "acting as an unbiased mediator when two or more
> developers have a dispute over
> something", we're not childs that need to be calm down -- Here's my
> suggested drop-in: "taking final decisions when consensus cannot be found
> otherwise."

Actually, I was merely trying to replicate what the devrel stuff sais on
this ;-) It isn't about a dispute on documentation aspects. If that were the
case, I'd suggest a "consensus model" on the mailinglist and indeed project
lead having a final say if consensus cannot be found.

But when developers are more in dispute on non-documentation related
aspects, the devrel guide/policy currently positions the project lead as a
first mediator.

Of course, we could just drop that part (since it already is in the policy)
or rewrite it according to your suggestion (but then make it clear it is
about project-related activities).

Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
 
Old 09-28-2011, 06:32 PM
"Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)"
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

El 24/09/11 08:39, Sven Vermeulen escribió:
> If we need a more objective metric to start with, I'd rather do it on
> timeframe ("... sufficient document changes over a term of at least 4
> months"), which holds twice then (first and second phase)
It may be me but I'm still wondering why do you need an objective
metric. Usually the project lead should be smart enough to know when to
pull the rope and accept into the team a particular colaborator.
 
Old 09-28-2011, 06:36 PM
Matthew Summers
 
Default Review of Documentation Policy

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:

El 24/09/11 08:39, Sven Vermeulen escribió:

> If we need a more objective metric to start with, I'd rather do it on

> timeframe ("... sufficient document changes over a term of at least 4

> months"), which holds twice then (first and second phase)

It may be me but I'm still wondering why do you need an objective

metric. Usually the project lead should be smart enough to know when to

pull the rope and accept into the team a particular colaborator.




Checks and balances, my friend, checks and balances. I would be more concerned about the lead _refusing_ the contrib or entry into the project of a particular individual.

Cheerio--
Matthew W. Summers
Gentoo Foundation Inc.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org