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

[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.