+1 to "starter" over "newbie." I think the ++ plan makes sense, too.

Thanks for the initiative on this, Alexander. It seems like a very valuable
effort for the community.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:35 PM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io>
wrote:

> I am glad this already revealed that we aren't consistent in what labels we
> are using. I assume the idea of newbie++ was to facilitate a progression? I
> really like that and would love to keep something like that.
>
> I don't think the term "newbie" is great. To me it has a little bit of a
> negative connotation.
>
> Does anyone have an issue with adopting "starter" and "starter++"
> consistently? I am happy to do the conversion work and make sure the
> communication in the wiki etc. is consistent going forward.
>
> Mike, I agree that there is probably a lot of great work that someone who
> doesn't know the code base well can do in Pulse. I'd suggest that we still
> decide on a case by case basis. A quick glance showed a few bugs that
> probably should be tackled sooner rather than later. I'll take a pass at
> all Pulse related tickets and see if they are a good fit.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I'd love to tag all the pulse issues as newbie if we could.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Good idea!  We he have a few other labels relevant to this as well:
> > >
> > > - newbie
> > > - low-hanging-fruit
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can be
> > > their
> > > > first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute
> > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/How+to+Contribute
> >
> > > has a
> > > > list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and
> > likely
> > > > would be overwhelming to first time contributors. There also is a
> link
> > > > to tickets
> > > > labeled with "Starter"
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > > 3D%20Geode%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20starter%20AND%20status%
> > > 20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%29>.
> > > > I think the later is probably a much better angle for someone to
> start
> > > > contributing to Geode. Unfortunately there was less than a handful of
> > > > tickets labeled as starter tickets.
> > > >
> > > > My suggestion is to find tickets that strike a healthy balance
> between
> > > being
> > > >
> > > >   - simple enough that someone new to the code base can realistically
> > > take
> > > >   them on
> > > >   - rewarding enough that someone can feel a sense of accomplishment
> > > after
> > > >   having their PR merged
> > > >   - small enough that it can be accomplished in an evening or at
> most a
> > > >   long weekend
> > > >   - unlikely to result in conflicts with larger efforts that someone
> is
> > > >   already undertaking
> > > >
> > > > It would be great to have a variety of tickets that have different
> > levels
> > > > of complexity and required effort to allow new contributors of
> varying
> > > > experience levels to start contributing meaningfully and maybe even
> > > support
> > > > somewhat of a progression curve for someone who wants to become a
> > regular
> > > > contributor or even committer.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also suggest to not allow the list to grow too large. If the list
> > > gets
> > > > bigger than 20-30 tickets it might get too hard to keep a clear grasp
> > on
> > > it
> > > > and the risk of having tickets that aren't relevant anymore
> increases.
> > > > Nothing would be more frustrating to a new contributor than investing
> > > their
> > > > personal time just to find out that it was wasted. So let's be
> mindful
> > of
> > > > not using this as a dumping ground for everything we'd like to see,
> but
> > > > know we'll never get to.
> > > >
> > > > I already labeled a few more tickets as starter. Please feel free to
> > > > validate that I didn't violate my own suggestions in doing so.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to