Okay, no

[branchandroot]

So, anyone at all can submit pull requests to the OTW github, now. Supposedly, this way "experienced coders" can help in a drive-by way without having to jump through all the volunteering, form-filling, hoops.

That's nice.

Except for the part where you still need to jump through the hoops to get a development environment, the thing that lets you see the code from the back end. Without a development environment, the only way you can write a drive-by bug fix is by installing a local version of the Archive on your own computer or webspace which effort, the github documentation specifically says, will not receive any help or support. ETA: That's a bit better. A Windows install will not be supported, but there are some docs available for OSX or Linux; the Secretary has also added a link to the new IRC channel, which is entirely laudable.

And why the hell should anyone go to that kind of trouble? In what way is that "casual"? In what way is this actually useful? ETA: In particular, how is this useful given the OTW's history of bad faith and abusing their pool of volunteers, to date? How is a "well, it's better than most" barrier going to convince anyone who's been watching this train wreck for a few years, now, to dip a toe in?

I am seriously out of patience with this run-around, and the misinformation someone is evidently feeding the rest of the org. Whoever first suggested that opening up pull requests alone would open up development in some meaningful way? Lied.

And if there was no active misinformation, then I'm sorry but chalk up another mark for incompetence. I'm honestly not sure which I'd prefer.

Comments

[branchandroot]

You know, not once have I compared AO3 to Dreamwidth. The fact that you repeatedly have is kind of making me wonder. If we're on that subject, though, DW documentation has always made it clear to me what I was signing for, and when (that is, here's my email for the person who manages the dreamhacks, and here's my permission to license my designs under open source terms). DW as a body also sustained my initial trust, instead of grinding it into the dirt, which latter pretty much describes my experience trying to help with AO3.

Let's be honest, OTW code development and volunteering has a really big backlog of bad experience to overcome, at this point. A continuing roll of bad experience, which is reinforced every time a staffer or volunteer contacts me privately, asking me to please not name them in public, even when they're making extremely mild critiques. That's happened three times in the last month/four entries on otw. That is not the sign of a community I want to take much trouble to participate in.

So if there are no longer months of delay after filling out that form (which seems to be not entirely the case) and there are no longer mandatory training sessions or meetings for bug-shooters (god I hope not) and if I would no longer have to follow Shalott's personal roadmap (questionable)... well, those are all good things, but that's still Shalott in charge over there. The person who ignores her obligations, who has terrible commit discipline and clearly very little idea how to manage code that's updated from multiple sources, and who has, in the past, displayed appalling callousness toward volunteers in her area. These things do not encourage me to place my faith, or my time and work, into that area, or to trust that my work would be part of a reasonably well-directed and sustainable project.

Every step taken toward making OTW code more genuinely resemble an Open Source project is a good one. The github repository was a major step, and I applaud it. More open documentation would be a good next step; that kind of thing should not reside mostly on a private wiki. But there's also a lot of broken faith that needs to be addressed, publicly and with some fanfare, and hasn't been. OTW as a body, and the AO3 branch in particular, has a long row to hoe before it can claim to be level in openness or trust with a project like Wordpress. Or Calibre. Or, indeed, Dreamwidth. In the meantime, OTW is going to have to allow more access to get a similar level of willingness to even try, among the body of potential contributers, and offer some assurances that contributers will not be abused the way all too many volunteers (including those at the highest levels) have been. I really would suggest breaking the process for getting a webdev off from the Volunteering form, which has a lot of really bad associations, by now. Let whoever maintains the webdev server handle those. Open source bug-shooters really are, in general, a lot like a bunch of cats. They don't need someone to stand at the door letting them in and out. They need a cat door. It's only when it comes time to review whether that's a catnip mouse or a dead field mouse they've left you that gating needs to happen.

[bookshop]

I really would suggest breaking the process for getting a webdev off from the Volunteering form, which has a lot of really bad associations, by now.

Renay's only been VolCom chair for 6 months, and in that time as many people have noted there's been a marked improvement in response times for volunteers. It seems likely that improvement will continue.

It doesn't seem fair to insist on change in one part of the org, and then simultaneously suggest that VolCom, one of the committees in the org that's most visibly and actively working on changing, is too broken to function and should be jettisoned.

The other crucial issue here is that many, many people want Volunteers to gain the right to vote in the org. If that happens, the only way we can give them votes is to actually put them through an induction process. Which means we need VolCom.

(Disclaimer: this is a DevMemer's opinion, am not a VolComrade.)

[branchandroot]

Excuse me, but I don't believe I suggested somehow getting rid of the Volunteer committee. I suggested splitting one particular process off into the immediate care of the person most closely concerned with implementing that process. Pay attention to the actual words you just copied and pasted. Pointing out years and years of built-up bad press is not equivalent to suggesting annihilation.

[bookshop]

You're suggesting that Coding jettison the VolCom induction process. That's why I said "jettison."

[branchandroot]

*faintly disgusted* No, I did not. I suggested that the specific action of getting a /webdev/ not be required to go through the Volunteer gateway, not that all coding somehow eschew contact with the volunteer process. If you want to defend the current volunteer committee or its chair, please go find someone who's actually attacking them.