Re: Review of Documentation Policy

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:46:01PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> The recruiting information seems strange and unnecessarily structured.
> It all seems to be written for people who are not developers.
> 
> The Contributions phase mentions a lot of undefined titles,
> "Operational Manager", "Full-time Developer", "Part-time Developer".
> There's a table that shows the number of contributions/time for a
> developer, but what do these roles actually mean? Who/what is an
> "Operational Manager"?

That's "old school" and is indeed something that we ought to improve in the
description.

> > ... to inform the contributor about the time-consuming position and pressure the application involves.
> 
> Come on. What is this? I don't think I remember getting paid as a
> Gentoo developer. This nonsense about time commitments and pressure is
> pretentious.
> 
> It seems to me that the steps for joining the Docs team for a current
> developer should be much more clearly stated.

Any suggestion here? It isn't difficult to update the policy to be more
real-life like (my own immediate suggestion would be to drop the "numbered"
commit / bug requirement and instead use a regular mentoring role, and
putting the responsibility of acknowledging in the mentor's lap) but we
might even go beyond just "updating" the policy.

Let's take a fresh look and see ;-)

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen