This issue is a stub for working out ideas, concepts, and other steps involved for contributors who would like to officially join the Python SIG.
The Python SIG is having frustration with onboarding new members to their SIG and are wanting to come up with solutions to make the process smoother for sponsors and new applicants.
Two meetings ago, we agreed that next target group (outside of final follow-up on tickets awaiting badges) would be the Python SIG due to discussions that happened at the CommOps workshop at Flock 2016.
Some bulletpoint info about the Python SIG:
At Flock, it was noted that the on-boarding process for new members has difficulties:
Ideas we had at our 2016-08-23 meeting:
More discussion is needed about some ideas we can convert into action items.
@churchyard @pviktori
IMO the main problem is that it's not clear what Python SIG is. Is it:
I would argue for the latter. But having a FAS group of the same name is very confusing; can we rename it?
The points listed above would become much clearer if there was clear separation between the two.
One of the tasks we have identified is rearranging the SIG wiki page to make it friendlier. I've forked the CommOps page which can be used as a template, here. Feel free to chip in and make some edits.
@pviktori Hey, sorry, forgot to update this ticket formally! We discussed it in our meeting on Tuesday. You can find some of those minutes here. I'll be working on taking the meeting discussion into a more parseable format here over the weekend.
@dhanesh95 Sounds good, thanks for starting the fork to the page. This is a good first step. :grin:
To keep things consistent, I'd call the second group python-provenpackager, as it will give you the same rights as any provenpackager but limited to python-sig co-owned packages. Beside, if you're in the python-sig, it's assumed that you're part of the of packager group so python-packager is confusing.
The Join page contained a section called 'Get Bootstrapped!' which aims at providing new contributors with an idea of how things work in Fedora Project. I suggest we should include that section in the join page.
Discussed in 2016-09-13 meeting.
We discussed this ticket during our meeting – @dhanesh95 has been busy. :smile: I saw just recently that the Python SIG members gave a +1 to the wiki page changes and to creating the second FAS group. I think the next steps for @dhanesh95 on this one are:
python-packagers
Does this all sound fair, @dhanesh95?
Discussed in 2016-09-13 meeting. We discussed this ticket during our meeting – @dhanesh95 has been busy. 😄 I saw just recently that the Python SIG members gave a +1 to the wiki page changes and to creating the second FAS group. I think the next steps for @dhanesh95 on this one are: File a Fedora Infrastructure ticket for a new FAS group, CC @churchyard @pviktori, specify setting them as FAS group admins Either @churchyard or @pviktori can work on separating the two groups / adding members / setting up mailing lists to send sensitive mails to python-packagers FAS group Update the wiki page with the changes Close ticket! Does this all sound fair, @dhanesh95?
Discussed in 2016-09-13 meeting. We discussed this ticket during our meeting – @dhanesh95 has been busy. 😄 I saw just recently that the Python SIG members gave a +1 to the wiki page changes and to creating the second FAS group. I think the next steps for @dhanesh95 on this one are:
File a Fedora Infrastructure ticket for a new FAS group, CC @churchyard @pviktori, specify setting them as FAS group admins Either @churchyard or @pviktori can work on separating the two groups / adding members / setting up mailing lists to send sensitive mails to python-packagers FAS group Update the wiki page with the changes Close ticket!
Roger that @jflory7 ! I'll get the tasks done as soon as possible.
The ticket has been filed as instructed by @jflory7 and the wiki page is also live. :smile:
@dhanesh95 What's the progress on the FAS groups? Not sure if I missed anything on the mailing list or if a decision was made yet.
Few more people have presented their feedback on the Infra ticket. No decisions have been made yet.
I think we should close this ticket as our part of the job is done. The required group has been created and the only task remaining is to add people to the group and make pkgdb and mailing list point to that group. A ticket already exists in the Infrastructure team's ticketing system to get the above tasks done.
@dhanesh95 I'm inclined to agree that I think this ticket is effectively resolved. If anyone from the Python SIG wishes to add anything, their comments are always welcome in the ticket! Closing as complete. :clapper:
@jflory7 changed the status to Closed
Closed
Login to comment on this ticket.