On 2018-11-28 20:10:52 (+0100), Robin Broda via aur-general wrote: > On 11/18/18 3:52 AM, Xyne wrote: > > On 2018-11-12 12:22 +0100 > > Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote: > >> Not saying nobody does, but sponsoring should quite frankly be far more > >> then just to agree and like that an applicant wants to become a TU. > >> Redirecting to another possible sponsor doesn't mean you reject an > >> applicant either and that's easy to make clear! To volunteer being a > >> sponsor should mean to _potentially_ spend lots of time and patience in > >> order to be a mentor that an applicant deserves. > > > > However, rather than requiring multiple sponsors just to apply, I suggest > > requiring multiple sponsors to proceed to the vote. The procedure would be: > > 1. A TU identifies a good candidate and discusses the idea with them. > > 2. The TU reviews the candidate's packages and community participation > > thoroughly and suggests improvements if necessary. > > 3. Once all suggested improvements have been made, the TU agrees to sponsor > > and > > the candidate applies. > > 4. The TU confirms and explains their sponsorship, citing specifics. > > 5. Other TUs review the application. TUs that are confident in the candidate > > after review then vouch for the candidate by co-sponsoring them. In > > addition > > to the quality of packages, the co-sponsors should have at least been > > aware > > of the candidate within the community for an extended period of time. > > 6. If x TUs agree to sponsor within the discussion period, the vote goes > > ahead > > as usual. If not, the candidate has to wait as usual to reapply. During > > the > > wait, TUs can pay closer attention to the candidate until they feel > > confident enough to co-sponsor. > > Should we get these points formalized in the bylaws? I think so.
> I feel like maybe if we split up each point and have a vote for each > of them, we could figure out what exactly the others from the team are > looking for - without blocking some of the proposals here by batching > them up with the ones that weren't so well received. I agree with that and generally like the ideas put forward by Xyne (in extension of what Levente wrote). Having them separetely votable is preferable I guess. I see, that we need more participation in the voting and reviewing process and I think that a more formalized rule set can help in doing so (and not just having one or two people do the review and then feeling overwhelmed at some point). I also think, that this has the potential to raise the overall package quality (aka teamwork) and help TUs across the board to learn new things. I don't believe in a separate gremium, that will magically fix this. Some TUs are exactly that involuntarily already (e.g. by choosing to review) - or at least it somewhat feels like it ;-) However, no single person can and or should do that all the time. > What are your thoughts? Let's do it! Best, David -- https://sleepmap.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
