It doesn't sound like the devguide is ideally the right place for it.
Actually, for a guide devoted to attract new contributors, saying "hey, we'd really like you to contribute on a volunteer basis, but here is a list of people who prefer being paid to do the same thing" may send the wrong message.
I also understand the pragmatic side of the proposal, which is that the devguide has an established development and contribution process where it is easy to propose changes and get them discussed and accepted (compared to, say, the python.org website which may still be still more or less of a... "clusterfuck", perhaps? :-)).
I'm saying that, regardless of whether I may want to be included in such a list or not (I'm currently happily employed by a company which would definitely deserve to get on the list, though - and, hey, so is Trent too :-)).
Regards
Antoine.
Le 19/09/2015 14:50, Trent Nelson a écrit :
I like it, +1.
It'd also be useful to see other developers' availability (i.e. "free for six months from March 2016") if you ever wanted to try and organize a pitch-to-the-PSF-for-sponsorship type project.
Trent.On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 03:43:22PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Hi folks,
A question I occasionally get asked by organisations that use Python commercially but don't currently employ any core developers themselves is "How can we prioritise getting particular issues fixed/reviewed/merged?".
A related problem we have in the PSF is knowing which core developers are available for freelance & consulting work when organisations approach us regarding larger projects. At the moment, those kinds of referrals are reliant on Board members' personal knowledge of who amongst the core development team is open to that style of employment and making direct introductions, which is neither transparent nor fair.
As such, what do folks think of the idea of a new, *opt-in* section in the developer guide, similar to the current experts index, but allowing core developers to indicate the ways in which we're willing to provide paid support.
I'd see four likely sections in such a document:
- Freelance consultants: folks that are available for contract opportunities at the individual level
- Consulting companies: folks that are available for contract opportunities, but work for larger consulting organisations rather than contracting directly
- Commercial redistributors: folks that work for commercial Python redistributors and are willing and able to both help in getting customer issues resolved and in acting as a point of escalation for their colleagues
- Direct employment: folks that work directly for organisations that use Python extensively, and hence are able to act as a point of escalation for their colleagues
The latter three categories would be further broken out by employer, while the first would just be a list of names and professional contact details.
Regards, Nick.
P.S. Disclosure: I do have my own interests in mind here, both personally and professionally. At a personal level, I'm a strong believer in "If you want me to care about your opinion on how I spend my time, pay me", so it makes sense to me to make it easy for more commercially-minded core developers to say "Pay me or my employer if you'd like to influence my time allocation". Professionally, it's definitely in my interests for both Python core developers and commercial Python redistributors to be recognised as a group for their expertise and overall influence on the technology sector.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers