Tails

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2019-09-22 08:53:51

• Status changed from New to Confirmed

> Few month ago, when I create tickets about VeraCrypt and Additional software, I didn’t find the information about assignment in this list: https://tails.boum.org/contribute/index.en.html#mentors

I think there might be a misunderstanding here: this is not meant to be a list of folks who are responsible for X or Y, and thus not a list of folks to whom new tickets in these areas shall be assigned to by default. It seems you’ve found a new, creative way to use this page :)

The “assigning them tickets on Redmine” part in this document is about when a new contributor needs input from a mentor. I suspect this is not your case and that instead you mean to report bugs. In that case, not assigning to anyone is fine.

Still, it’s correct that this page is outdated in a bunch of ways:

• As you said, newer Tails components and features are not listed.
• At least one mentor listed there (tchou) is not active in Tails anymore.
• Similarly, BitingBird gave up on tech writing.
• Some mentors are either regularly MIA, or (in their own words) not in a position to participate in low-latency communication. IMO this makes them unsuitable to be listed here: being reactive to new contributors’ questions and contributions is key in welcoming them properly. We’ve already lost folks by sucking at this.

Historical background:

• This list was added after a discussion whose notes are in summit-2015/notes/independence_contributors.mdwn. I’ve added u to the list of watchers since she initiated this discussion and implemented this change, so she might have a strong opinion here. I don’t remember who proposed that we publish a list of mentors.
• AFAICT no process was set up to maintain this list. So it’s not surprising that it’s not been maintained.

Personally:

• I don’t recall any new contributor contacting me individually because my name was listed there. Maybe it happened to other folks, I don’t know.
• I never use this list. Otherwise, I would surely have noticed it was so outdated.

So at this point, we have outdated info that would need regular maintenance work, and that we’re not sure is useful in practice. Hmmm.

If someone wants to volunteer to be the maintainer of this list of mentors, or wants to try & find a maintainer for it, I’m fine with that.
Else, I think we should remove this section entirely: its current state is misleading and in many cases, if anyone actually tries to use this information, having outdated info is more detrimental than beneficial.

#3 Updated by sajolida 2020-04-06 18:03:14

• Assignee deleted (sajolida)

I don’t want to maintain this section.

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2020-04-12 09:09:35

• Subject changed from Missing mentors in Contribute page to List of mentors in Contribute page is unmaintained and outdated

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2020-04-12 09:38:20

• Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

Applied in changeset commit:tails|f6c10aa1e5e958da619a1d6b79d8224d4c5e48f3.

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2020-04-12 09:41:04

• Status changed from In Progress to Confirmed

> I don’t want to maintain this section.

I could certainly update this section once a year or so, but I don’t think this would be sufficient for this tool to achieve its goal. I believe the way we’re operating, 5 years later, gives us tools & processes that could work better.

The problem this section was meant to solve is: it’s hard for new contributors to find the info they need in order to work on an issue. I don’t know if things have improved or gotten worse since, but I’m aware this is still a problem.

In my experience, new contributors don’t know who exactly they could ask for more info, so they ask their question on the issue. I think that’s OK. So the question is: who’s responsible for answering them?

• For code matters, this is explicitly on the plate of the FT. Currently, with my “FT front desk” hat on, either I’m doing this myself or I’m raising attention of someone else who could do it. We have plans to make this work more distributed and less dependent on me only. I think GitLab will help on this front, e.g. one can subscribe to issues that have a given label (for example, issues about the Installer).
• For sysadmin matters: we’re so bad, in many other ways, at enabling non-sysadmins to contribute to our infra, that I don’t think having someone explicitly responsible to answer questions will make a significant difference.
• For tech writing, website, UX: I’m under the impression that sajolida would notice and answer such questions.

So my proposal is:

• Remove the Mentors section.
• Clarify somewhere (e.g. on the GitLab doc page and/or various contribute/how/* pages) what’s the best way to ask more info: sometimes there’s another way, but the fallback should be to ask on the issue.
• Wrt. code matters, improve how this is handled as part of the “distribute the FT front desk hat” problem, which is tracked elsewhere already.

I volunteer to do all that.