Re: Do we still value contributions?
On 2019/12/24 20:08, John Goerzen wrote:
<snip>
> But at the same time, I feel that the project as a whole isn't really
> taking this problem very seriously.
That is true, probably mostly because many people don't really
understand that there is a problem. The NEW queue waits are tough, but
there are also the following which are also often in serious need of
attention:
* Patches attached to bug reports
* Request for sponsorships
* Merge requests
Energy put into all areas like that end up paying for itself because it
helps energize and attract new contributors.
I try to keep up with sponsorship backlogs (making good strides but
can't really keep up), which at the same time adds load to the NEW queue
(11 of my and sponsoree packages stuck in there right now), which I feel
kind of bad for so I've been trying to join as an FTP team trainee too
to help out there (which I should probably try to follow-up again but
that's also been a bit frustrating).
I think many will agree with you that we should do better in all those
areas, especially the NEW queue, but change is difficult and in itself
takes time. In a commercial setting it would probably be easier to
create incentives to motivate staff to do more review kind of work, but
I suppose in Debian it's seen as somewhat unglamorous work and we don't
have many methods to incentivise contributors.
In particular I think it's important to support events like bug
squashing parties because it's one of the few things that we can do, and
encourage things like patch reviews, sponsoring and NEW queue reviews at
these events and maybe even thank all the people who participate in
these on a monthly basis in bits from Debian so that maybe this work can
be highlighted more as something that we do value and might encourage
more people to get involved there.
-Jonathan
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Reply to: