Refining MOTU Mentoring

[Emmet Hikory]

On 8/21/07, Daniel Holbach <daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> I thought some more about the topic after various discussions with
> people.
<...>
> Some things we would generally like to see happening:
>       * Contributors should use the 'official sponsoring process' as
>         soon as possible.

    Should Contributors ever not use the 'official sponsoring
process'?  I've yet to encounter a Contributor, whether with a mentor
or without, that was willing to follow the process, especially where
their mentor was otherwise occupied (or did not have access, in the
case of patches for main) (although there is certainly frustration
when there are significant delays in uploads).

<...>
> In my opinion the time is best spent to make new contributors
> comfortable with the processes, people and some tools. The general
> review and Q&A we should be done by the complete MOTU team for a couple
> of reasons:
>
>       * New contributors get to know a lot of different people - that's
>         important.
>       * New contributors get more input from various people.
>       * We are able to process much more contributors as a team.

    I'd like to strongly encourage all of the above, and also note
that the greater visibility from team interaction additinally provides
the following benefits:

    * Contributors have an easier time demonstrating packaging skills
    * Sponsors can benefit from team review when there are questions
    * Contributors demonstrate effective community participation

> With these efforts new contributors should also spend less time in the
> mentoring slots.

    Is this a goal?  I can see two different purposes of mentoring,
and I'm not sure which is the consensus understanding from the above.
In one case, the mentor coordinates with the newcomer, helping them to
become a Contributor, actively engaged in the development process.  In
the other case, the mentor coordinates with either a newcomer or
Contributor, and helps them to become a MOTU, responsible for driving
the development of universe and multiverse.

    If the goal is the first, I think that in most cases, a motivated
newcomer can become a valuable Contributor within a fairly short
period of time, but I'm not sure the process to become MOTU can happen
as quickly.  I've had private discussions with a few Contributors,
helping to develop a plan towards becoming MOTU (in terms of balancing
demonstrating technical skills, community involvement, and
demonstration of development goals; combined with persistance and
demonstration of committment), and I have the impression that many
Contributors do not know either how to progress towards MOTU, nor what
activities will be considered helpful by the existing community.

    Personally, I believe that both newcomer -> Contributor and
Contributor -> MOTU are areas where personal involvement from a MOTU
can be assistive, beyond the typical information availably on the
wiki, via IRC, or on the mailing list.  In the first case, because the
volume of information is daunting, and the quality extremely variable.
 In the second case because there is no (and perhaps cannot be) any
documentation on the specific criteria by which the prospective is
judged.  Perhaps mentors could volunteer to assist with either of
these transitions (or split slots between them).  This would allow for
faster turnover of slots, as the Contributor often does not need as
much personal attention once basic patching and packaging has been
mastered, but before they are ready for application to MOTU.

-- 
Emmet HIKORY