NixOS Foundation | 483 Members | |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 122 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 19 Apr 2024 | ||
*
I think this is fine, as long as someone in the mob is "knowledgeable" and able to course correct when needed. But having many people "learn by doing" at the same isn't the most productive. Generally, there's at least someone somewhat "knowledgeable" on a topic, so it's a chance for others to learn. In other words, there should be at least one "mentor" in attendance, or reviewing the work output. | 19:35:14 | |
In reply to @piegames:matrix.org As a person that was already engaged with Nix and Nixpkgs before SoN and after and a participant of SoN 2023 I'd say about your points: Some extra comments: - In the end this is an NLnet project, not a NixOS foundation project, so their own pressure on setting their own objectives has to be taken into account. - Is the nixpkgs contributor set able to team up to do actual knowledge transfer? Will a consensus even be reached on what the acceptable quality of a nixpkgs package is? What to do when one thinks that a reviewer/gatekeeper is doing nitpicking? Where is the feedback of new contributor experience collected? - The mob programming format at least helped people do some Nixing, due to the social aspect of it. People that would have not done any Nixing, where is that impact accounted for? | 20:32:22 | |
| On the broader topic of mob programming, I don't think it get's rid of the need of having peer review if the team isn't representative enough (for example, in this case, containing at least one nixpkgs committer). I did voice this multiple times during my mob sessions. | 20:36:02 | |
| But again NLnet doesn't necessarily have the same goals as nixpkgs | 20:38:15 | |
| do you think nlnet is properly aware of what they're getting out of SoN? | 20:38:31 | |
| also, low efficiency isn't really debatable when you take groups of 5 participants and they end up having lower output (even after months of being in the program) than I'd expect a single nixpkgs committer would have in the same unit of time | 20:41:20 | |
| (we've seen this in practice with e.g. pretalx) | 20:41:37 | |
| (where, on top of being duplicated work, the duplicated work took significantly more person-hours than what ended up being done by a single contributor in nixpkgs) | 20:41:57 | |
In reply to @delroth:delroth.netNo clue tbh | 20:42:28 | |
| First of all to be fully transparent: I'm one of the facilitator for this year and thus have a financial tie to this project.
that's not entirely true, since it's a project in colab with the nixos foundation and all the financial stuff and contracts are handled through the foundation. | 20:44:07 | |
| also, even if nlnet strictly set the goals (which I don't believe they do - it's probably fairly loosely defined, as it should be), there would still be significant leeway in how to achieve those goals, and that's the space I think would be worth exploring because I don't believe the SoN methods are being effective | 20:45:39 | |