Mailing list only appliations for Contributing Developer

[Sebastien Bacher]

Hey there,

I'm also +1 on the process described

Cheers,
Sébastien

Le 04/09/2023 à 22:22, Lucas Kanashiro a écrit :
> 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
>