Hello. I don't know if this is the right place to make these considerations. Maybe yes, because mindshare is also responsible for teams related to outreach and new controbutors onboarding.
FAS group membership is not technically important like some years ago. Nowadays you can contribute without being part of any FAS group. You can write magazine articles, submit quick docs, help people on ask fedora, participate in test days, translate stuff, all without being part of any FAS group. Maybe also packaging? (I could be wrong, I don't remember if pagure rights are enough). FAS group membership (CLA+1) Is mandatory in some aspects of the community (i.e. voting, mail alias, wiki edit). If you know how to do it, it is pretty easy to gain a membership (wikiedit group or fedora-join temporary membership), but this is not the point. The point is the commitment, the point is feeling myself (as a new contributor) part of the community. [As a new contributor] I can write a magazine article, and then? I can translate a bunch of strings. Write quick docs. Be active. Then the election period comes, and I discover that I can't vote. Or I want to edit a wiki page, and since I'm not CLA+1 I can't. Or I see that I could have a shining @fedoraproject.org mail alias, and it doesn't work for me. And if I'm interested, I need to ask the reason to somebody. Or I consider that a malfunction. I know, many people don't care about that. Like many people are not interested in badges. The reason why someone contribute is not a collection of badges, but for instance I'm happy if I receive them :-D
For instance, QA team has a clear and easy path (it is also true that in order to report validation test results you need to edit the wiki, so in this case CLA+1 is mandatory): you apply for the group membership and you send an introduction email to the mailing list. What about other groups? It would be nice if the same process works for the translation team, the doc team, the magazine team, etc. I think that it is something like badges or cookies, for the good health of the community. It is more a recognition of your work, or a motivating step, other than a technical stuff. And help people to feel more part of the community.
Hi @alciregi - can you confirm I am understanding this request/inquiry correctly?
You would like to see clear onboarding paths for each team within Mindshare.
If that is the case, this is something that would work really well along with the Community Outreach Revamp, and it is sort of already being addressed. See this ticket: https://pagure.io/fedora-commops/issue/220
Should we add in a couple questions to these interviews? For example: "What is your teams current onboarding process?" "When is the last time your teams onboarding process was updated?"
WDYT?
Hi @alciregi - can you confirm I am understanding this request/inquiry correctly? You would like to see clear onboarding paths for each team within Mindshare.
Yes. More or less. I don't like too much bureaucracy in some cases, but also living without any rule isn't nice :-D In some cases it seems too much smoky to consider myself (not me in the real sense, I think to newcomers or first time contributors) part of a team or call myself a contributor. I mean, I can translate a bunch of strings on weblate, or submit a bunch of PR to docs, but: in what way I can say "I'm part of the community"? "I'm part of that team"? Again. I mean. I send an introduction to a mailing list, I receive a welcome reply, I start to perform some work. I'm part of the team? Probably yes. And if I want to vote? If I want to edit my wiki page? Yes, I'm a contributor but I need to beg around for a FAS membership.
If that is the case, this is something that would work really well along with the Community Outreach Revamp, and it is sort of already being addressed. See this ticket: https://pagure.io/fedora-commops/issue/220 Should we add in a couple questions to these interviews? For example: "What is your teams current onboarding process?" "When is the last time your teams onboarding process was updated?"
It works.
<snip>
Again. I mean. I send an introduction to a mailing list, I receive a welcome reply, I start to perform some work. I'm part of the team? Probably yes. And if I want to vote? If I want to edit my wiki page? Yes, I'm a contributor but I need to beg around for a FAS membership.
I don't think CLA+1 is about anything else but making sure that the account is not bot or spam. Wiki is a place where you can write anything and it will be there (unless someone notices and reports). CLA+1 means someone identified you, spoke to you and sponsored you and this adds a layer of trust. Like fedora pastebin back in the day which we had to close because there was no saying who wrote that and what was the content.. so "legal"! Same for voting, someone can create 100s of account and vote 100 times. it's not about not trusting someone but about just a small step to ensure right people are voting. I could be wrong and there might be better arguments on against CLA+1, but so far I think it's important to the places where there is no direct moderation.
The other example you gave (bunch of PRs to a doc for example) have reviewers and moderators making sure that bad code/doc/words are not getting merged that might be against Fedora CoC. and requesting FAS group membership is not begging but I see as a step. If you sent a bunch of PR to say join or diversity docs, I think being open to sponsor someone who has been working should be normalized instead of considering request to membership as bad.
(not a strong opinion)
Also, I do agree with you that atleast a doc stating requirements to get membership would be great
@siddharthvipul1 it is obvious that CLA+1 shouldn't be automatic. It's clear to me and to us why we have CLA+1 requirements. But I'm not talking about technical issues or requirements. But I mean. The point is when we have "identified" someone as not being a spammer or a professional troublemaker. If a magazine article has been accepted and published, I don't think that the author will start to spam the wiki or other places. The point is: how a newcomer is supposed to match CLA+1 requirements? It is true that sometime people is involved in many areas (i.e. a packager can write articles for the magazine and perform some translations) so they will eventually land in some team where they will be gain CLA+1. I.e. I'm pretty sure that if I like to write magazine articles, but I don't package anything nor I'm involved in any other team, I will never gain CLA+1. The other example of the doc contributions: I'm not talking about bad intentions. I meant that if a new contributor wrote a new quick doc or suggested an improvement, and such changes were merged: does they gain CLA+1? As far as I see: no. I can talk about the translation team. Since CLA+1 (i.e. l10n group) it is no more a technical requirement as it was with Zanata (everyone with a FAS account can translate strings), newcomers will never be added to the FAS group. And if despite my contributions I'm still not CLA+1 (I don't talk for myself :smile:), can I consider myself as a Fedora contributor? Sure, you can say, even without CLA+1. It is not true for everyone: but having CLA+1 I'm pretty sure that I could feel myself a full recognized contributor, and maybe more committed to perform other tasks.
Hi @alciregi!
I believe the teams you are referencing all require CLA and have documentation on how to become a part of the group. For example there are 3 l10n FAS groups, all require CLA and here is the documentation to join the team from a simple google search: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Guide
Magazine group that requires CLA. Fedora Documentation Project PR Merge Rights Group (docs) - requires CLA done
It seems to me that if you are doing these any of these types of tasks with recurrence, the next step would be to look at documentation on how to gain group membership and request that. When I am mentoring someone in badges, I suggest membership to an individual who seems to be sticking around.
I think your evaluation is accurate though, it isn't something people automatically do. And team leads may not be consistently thinking about adding new members to their teams. I still think this falls in line with the Revamp, or would need to be an entirely new initiative: Clarify, update, and organize onboarding process for each Mindshare team.
I believe the teams you are referencing all require CLA and have documentation on how to become a part of the group. For example there are 3 l10n FAS groups, all require CLA and here is the documentation to join the team from a simple google search:
These are only examples btw, I don't have any accurate data. But yes, you can find documentation describing how to join a team, but at the end of the day, you know, many documents are outdated and you get stuck without any FAS membership. I mean, at least it is not "automatic" you will be added to a group, despite contributions or completing the onboard process.
it isn't something people automatically do. And team leads may not be consistently thinking about adding new members to their teams.
Yes. This is the point.
think this falls in line with the Revamp, or would need to be an entirely new initiative: Clarify, update, and organize onboarding process for each Mindshare team.
Let's go ahead with the Revamp process. The questions to add to the team interviews you proposed in a previous comment sound good right now. Let's see in the future if we will need a new initiative.
Thanks for raising this concern formally, @alciregi, I believe it is absolutely something the Mindshare Committee can and should help address. Would it be okay with you to close this ticket?
Yes. Thanks.
Metadata Update from @alciregi: - Issue close_status updated to: Complete - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.