Mailing list only appliations for Contributing Developer

[Lucas Kanashiro]

Hi,

Thanks for your proposal Robie, as I mentioned during today's meeting, I 
am +1 for that.

Em 04/09/2023 16:44, Robie Basak escreveu:
> I proposed in today's IRC meeting that Contributing Developer
> applications could probably be handled entirely on the mailing list
> without the need for an IRC meeting.
>
> My reasoning is that while I prefer IRC meetings to assess knowledge,
> capability and understanding, that isn't needed for a Contributing
> Developer application.
>
> For example, today's applicant wasn't asked any questions and got
> unanimous +1s and this seems like a general pattern for this type of
> application. I don't like making people do things without a good reason,
> so this seems like a good opportunity to cut out this red tape.
>
> I suggest the following process, trying to accommodate handle edge
> cases that come to mind:
>
> 1. We start Contributing Developer applications on the mailing list
> only. This will require a documentation adjustment to inform applicants
> that they don't need to book an application meeting, but otherwise the
> process would be the same. If they do book an application meeting then
> that isn't a problem as we'll have a specific meeting where we resolve
> the situation.
>
> 2. DMB members can ask questions, but please allow some time for other
> members to ask questions before voting (say a week).
>
> 3. If a DMB member asks for an IRC meeting instead because something
> comes up, then we should postpone voting until that has happened. But
> otherwise, we can call for votes on the mailing list after a week, and
> if enough DMB members vote +1 by email (that's 50% of the DMB rounded up
> as is the existing rule), then we can call it done.
>
> 4. At IRC meetings we should check on and respond to any outstanding
> Contributing Developer applications as a standing item. This may require
> voting, assigning actions to make ACL changes and/or the announcement as
> required if those things are still outstanding at the time of the
> meeting, and so forth.
>
> 5. To avoid a weird situation where an incomplete vote is "completed"
> after a very long time, I suggest that mailing lists votes that are
> pending more votes to reach quorum should be treated as "expired" and
> require a new vote one calendar month after the vote is made, or one or
> more new members join the board, whichever happens first.

Here I think we just need to be cautious about the "very long time". 
Would an application be considered expired in a month or so? Applicants 
shouldn't wait for too long to get a final answer, even if that is 
"expired because we did not reach quorum".

> What do you think? We could try to follow the same pattern here: discuss
> first, then call for votes on the mailing list, and fall back to an IRC
> meeting agenda item if this thread isn't resolved by the next IRC
> meeting.
>
> Robie

-- 
Lucas Kanashiro