Prospective return of former contributors

[jasp00]

This issue originates from #3447 (comment). This keeps track of former contributors that may return if we can solve their situation given enough technical and economic resources; if there is no way to solve the case, it does not belong here. Causes should be identified. Each case should be an issue; list open ones in this entry.

• @JaneDoe #NNNN: two jobs.

[tresf]

Really? Now LMMS is in the business of fixing personal/employment/bandwidth problems? No.

[Umcaruje]

I don't see how this is a meta issue, it'd be more appropriate under conversation or something

[tresf]

I don't see how this is a meta issue

Because he wants each fallen soldier to write a testimonial in a separate bug report that we can cross-link to fix the problem as a whole.

I think I get the motive... if we can find things that are similar, we can correct the problem, but I don't know if going after past developers helps at all, it will only add unnecessary exposure to the developers.

I'd much rather work with some new aspiring developers. I think that's more in the spirit of progression.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with @jasp00 that recruitment and keeping developers are unrelated. The question was WHY WE LOSE THEM and a bit part of that is lack of core documentation and burn-out.

So a solid recruitment strategy is part of the big picture of keeping developers. We need a place to send new developers and we need a way for them to know which tasks are good to start working on.

I really think @jasp00 is missing the mark on this. Not every human resources issue can be fixed with a bulleted list. We need to shape a platform for developers, not debug one into existence with process.

[jasp00]

Reply to off-topic matters at #3447 (comment).

Former contributors that want to come back to LMMS, but cannot for whatever reason, you may open a separate issue for your case. As long as I am available, you will get feedback from me.

[tresf]

@jasp00 please add some information which properly categorizes this as a meta which can be tracked and updated. Alternately, I would recommend you close this out as simply a free-to-comment conversation thread. P.S. @JaneDoe is a real profile, probably shouldn't tag her unless she used to be a past developer.

[jasp00]

please add some information which properly categorizes this as a meta which can be tracked and updated.

It has such information. What data do you request?

I would recommend you close this out as simply a free-to-comment conversation thread.

This is not a conversation thread.

@JaneDoe is a real profile

I realized later, JavaScript did not show the profile. She is welcome anyway.

[tresf]

I realized later, JavaScript did not show the profile. She is welcome anyway.

No she's not, she's not a former contributor. Fixed.

What data do you request?

We generally work from a true bulleted list of work in order to fly the meta tag.

This current -- #3480 -- bug report is more like an open-ended invite, and one that would really have to be spearheaded, since it's unlikely past developers are just going to find this bug and decide they want to chime in.

We run the meta in two major fashions:

1. Organize a large effort into subtasks that can be assignable. The GitHub project feature can probably do this too, but we haven't yet tried to leverage that yet. Right now, it's a viable micro-management method. ("micro-management" is a good thing, in this case).
   -- OR --
2. Consolidate common requests into a single thread to help illustrate demand as well as scope, which will help a developer understand context and popularity when adding a new feature. So, a bird's-eye-view.

This current -- #3480 -- bug report appears to be #2., however it lacked the demand associated with a meta before it was opened so perhaps it was supposed to have been #1? I don't know and I don't care, but if it doesn't get cross-references in 6 months, I vote we close it out as a duplicate of #3447.

On the other hand, if it starts to become useful before then... great. 🕥

[jasp00]

I meant JaneDoe is welcome as a new contributor.

How about a former contributor tag for these issues?

I will add information to the wiki, not about specific contributors.

[tresf]

if it doesn't get cross-references in 6 months, I vote we close it out as a duplicate of #3447.

No cross-references in 2 months. Closing as a duplicate of #3447.