On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:15:01 -0400, Steve Holden email@example.com wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Steven D'Aprano <steve <at> pearwood.info> writes:
Who are we worried about offending? The crowds on the Internet who never volunteer for anything, who never submit patches, let alone offer to do the unglamourous work?
Perhaps you should look more carefully. We do have contributors who submit patches and advice on the tracker. There isn't just the committers and the passive masses.
Yes, in the last year in particular there has been some excellent effort of maintaining the issue tracker content. But the question still remains
- who are we worried about offending?
The people who are potential new contributors but don't currently know anyone in the Python community.
(oh, and following your logic, we should ignore your advice, unless you actually contribute to the "unglamourous work" - do you?)
In a meritocracy it isn't enough to be good at what you do, you also have to be known to be good.
If this were the criterion then the answer would be simple: nobody seems to knows dangerjim in the Python community.
Except, of course, the person recommending him. And it seems from the discussion that nobody is particularly bothered about finding out about him, preferring to exercise their various prejudices in preference to taking a PSF member's word that he's a potentially valuable contributor along with an offer of supervision.
I didn't realize we had so much effort available that we can ignore such offers.
This discussion has never been about dangerjim's qualifications, as far as I can tell. I believe we all fully expect him to be a valuable contributor within a very short time, because Sean is recommending him, and we welcome him to the community,
The discussion, in my view, is about the process in general, and how to make sure that it continues to promote good, inclusive community, by holding everyone to the same standards. (And the discussion, then, is should we change the current standard.)
(to make it clear: this is not a shot intended at him, rather at your own logic)
To make it clear: this is not intended as a criticism of you personally, rather of those who do not seem to feel that increasing the developer community is important. Perhaps diversity is just something you write in a statement.
Some of the comments in this thread have seemed positively unwelcoming, even though I doubt that was the authors' intention.
I have not read any of the comments as unwelcoming (although I could be misremembering), so I'm not sure why you heard that. We are talking about process and what works best for community building (which includes increasing the number of people in the developer community). And I at least am in the mode of *discussing* it, not speaking from a position set in stone...if the consensus that develops is that the familiarization period can be skipped in certain cases, I'm not going to block that consensus or get mad about it...but I don't think we have a developing consensus right now, and I'm not sure how to move forward on that.
For the record, note that both Antoine and I have been instrumental in bringing more than one new person into both the triage and the committer ranks. We (along with others) *are* the ones doing the welcoming and the mentoring and the growing of the developer community.
-- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com