[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: to Moray: encourage teams to take interns

On 2013-03-12 09:45, Charles Plessy wrote:
I have a question: could you comment on the differences, complementarity, or overlap between such an internship and the NM process, which already has extensive questions about packaging. My personal experience is that when I went through the NM process I learned a lot through the exchanges with my AM, to the point that I felt it close to be a "kind of internship sheme"...

I agree that often in the NM process there is a form of mentoring. We also have packaging mentoring through debian-mentors. In addition, we already have existing structured schemes in Debian like https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMed/MoM and http://www.debian.org/women/mentoring besides of course GSoC.

For the NM process itself, though, I would note that over the years Front Desk have tended to increase how ready they would like people to be before starting. The ideal in the NM process is seen to be that someone is already clearly ready to be a Debian member, and that the process is just a formality. And that's not just a recent change -- back when I was first an AM, it was recognised that some applicants wanted the process to be much more of a mentoring one than it was -- in some cases, people hope they can apply for membership without knowing at all yet what they want to do in Debian, and be guided into an appropriate role.

Even if we made the NM process more heavily a mentoring scheme, it would still only help people who are at the specific stage of trying to become a Debian member. The "internships" I have in mind are more general:

- They could work for people not ready for NM yet, by pulling in even people who don't yet have any ideas about how to contribute to Debian, but want to help and learn in a structured scheme.

- They could also work for existing long-term Debian members, like the FTP team's FTPTrainee scheme.[1]


[1] See https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/09/msg00001.html

Reply to: