[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107497] "Request for Inclusion" is too vague

[Karl Berry]

Follow-up Comment #11, sr #107497 (project administration):



Hi Sylvain,

    > I added you to the project.

Thanks.

    > Maybe you could argue about your additions?

Ok :) ... sorry this got long.

    > However I don't like to insist on not joining for
    > contributing,

I agree.  I didn't intend the new text to "insist" on
that any more than the existing text does.

    > the numerous small projects that we host.

Even for small projects, don't you think project admins
would like to be contacted beforehand with a greeting
instead of just seeing some unknown person show up as wanting to be a member?
 The current setup puts the burden on them
(the admins) to talk to the prospective member.

Speaking as the admin of several small projects myself,
I dislike seeing people I have never heard of show up
in the "want to be a member" lists.  I don't want to be
unfriendly and just silently reject them, since they
might be a useful contributor.  But I don't want to
jump the gun and just let them commit to my source
repos, either, since it usually turns out they
think it would be cool to be part of the project but
don't actually have the skills or time to contribute
at that level.  So I end up
having to compose personal email to them, asking them
for their background, interest, what they want to work
on, etc.  Takes nontrivial time.

So, sure, we shouldn't "insist" or technically
enforce that they email anyone first, but the current
submission process is actually something that takes
time away from project development rather than
assisting it.

This actually all seems the same to me regardless of
how big or small the project is.

In this regard, it actually seems it would be ideal for
the interface to allow sending a message along with the
request to join, but I know that involves another whole
level of work and thus isn't (IMHO) worth it.

    > Also members do not get merely access to the
    > repo, but also to get trackers privileges.

Yes, I am aware.  That is why I wrote "project
repositories", figuring that "trackers" could be seen
as included in that.  I don't have a problem with, say,
"project repositories and trackers" if you prefer it.
I did that in the new draft below.

Also: the current text merely says "write access to the
code repositories" which definitely excludes trackers.
So that could be improved, one way or another.  That's
what I was trying to do.  (It's actually why I took the time to undertake a
revision at all.)

Also: in the current text, "the" project mailing list
isn't right, since very often there is more than one
list.

Here's a slightly revised draft for your consideration
...

print _("Type below the name of the project you want to
join.  With most projects, you don't need to join to
make significant contributions; joining a project
specifically means getting write access to the project
repositories and trackers. Therefore, usually you
should first contact the project developers (e.g.,
using a project mailing list) before requesting formal
inclusion using this form.")."n";



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/support/?107497>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/