On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Riccardo Bernardini
<framefritti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I believe Suresh is going to propose working on it at the next code sprint, if there is enough support. If you are interested in contributing to that, I'm sure he'd welcome it.
regards,
Ted Hardie
<framefritti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I like your analysis. A comment while I am still "warm"
> (snip)
>
> The first suggestion is a "Newcomer's directorate".
>
>I like the second approach since it seems simpler to implement and it
> The second suggestion is a simple tool that at WG call time (be it last call
> or call for adoption) randomly selects a set number of participants from the
> mailing list, and then asks for a review or commentary. So 5 folks off the
> mailing list are directly asked for their opinion, without regard to
> preconceived notions of the chairs about who would be a good reviewer. If
> someone declines, the tool would select a new random person to fill out.
> The working group as a whole thus gets a chance to understand someone's
> technical viewpoint, without that person having to fit within one of the
> established human networks.
does not involve a new human "structure." Since we believe in running
code, we could try the second approach and see how it works. We
should fix the setup in advance (duration, metrics, ...), but you
already know that. It seems to me that it would require just a handful
of line of codes and little more.
I believe Suresh is going to propose working on it at the next code sprint, if there is enough support. If you are interested in contributing to that, I'm sure he'd welcome it.
regards,
Ted Hardie
I would also suggest that with the second approach the selected
reviewer could have been given a chance to say "no," because sometime
you could not have the time to do that. Of course, if someone says
"no" too often, that already is a hint... ;-)
Regards,
Riccardo
>
> There are other methods that may well be better than the two Suresh and I
> discussed, but I put these forward as a potentially concrete step that may
> help those struggling with this to understand that the end result of this
> need not be quotas. It should be a better environment for all of our
> volunteers.
>
> best regards,
>
> Ted Hardie