I’ve been here a little while now, and this is a pattern I’ve seen happen a few times:
Newbie: “I’m excited to contribute! And I found an itch I want to scratch in application X!” Old hand: “Yeah, X is bad and old and we’re going to replace it someday. I don’t think we should put work into it.” Newbie: “Ok …”
FIN
We never see Newbie again.
…
Excitement is the first step to becoming a regular contributor. If we discourage people from taking the next step that’s right for them, even if it’s not the perfect next step for the technical roadmap, then that’s the end of their story.
Here’s what could have happened instead:
Newbie: “I’m excited to contribute! And I found an itch I want to scratch in Fedora application X!” Old hand: “Yeah, X is pretty broken. We want to replace it someday, but if you want to help us patch it up until then I can help you get started.”
Worst case, they put some awkward band-aids on the problem and then we still replace X with Y anyway. But all software gets replaced eventually – even the stuff we deployed this morning. And those band-aids meant a lot more to the Newbie than they did to any of us.
That Encouraged Newbie might even still be here to replace Y with Z in 20 years, long after you’ve retired and your account lost all its privileges.
Don’t squander the precious resource of excitement!
I’m not trying to blast anyone here. I’ve made this mistake many times myself in the past. We’re technologists, and we tend to focus on the technology.
Just hoping this can be a gentle reminder to focus on the people around the technology.
This is a good observation. I don’t think anyone means to do this intentionally. And I don’t see you accusing anyone of anything either. This is one reason, of many, that I am excited about building up a more engaged and active CommOps team, because I think we can help bring the heat and the light to the exciting areas of Fedora, and also build a culture of inclusion where we invite people in instead of accidentally turning them away.
Sorry to complain under such a good post (), but let’s avoid the word “newbie”. It’s somewhat patronising and in many places (like in game-related spaces) it’s even used derogatory. “Newcomer” is more neutral and doesn’t have negative connotations (AFAIK)
You are on the money Michael.
You have hit the nail on the head
By that I mean I think you are right.
Social relationships trump technological ones in the development of complex organisations.
Give me an army of little people and we shall bind Gulliver.
When we listen to the sound of a seed, we hear the dynamism of the future.
It is not only saying “no you should not work on this” but it is entrenched unofficial heirarchies not including the new voice as equal. When people come in to Fedora, we don’t really know their backgrounds, skill levels or motivations. In Join-SIG, we ask these things, though it does not always get represented.
When new voices light up the room we need to simply listen. We don’t have to do exactly what they say, but we need to listen and not knee-jerk respond by mansplaining the way things currently are.
Another problem in Fedora is ignoring people that want to participate when they have not yet proved themselves.
In one channel I am in (I listen to a lot of channels) I had a committed community member say they did not want to go back to the public channel as they had been ignored last time they posted and tried to work there.
I did get them to go back, with a promise of responding and working together, I set the example of working together and a couple of other people also behaved in a normal social way. I would have liked more people to simply say “hi” or ask some basic question like "why are you interested in … ".
As technologists or engineers, we should add to our interpersonal subroutines preloaded strings such as “hello” “nice to see you” “what are your thoughts” and “that is a good idea”.
I think I have an idea about the event that you’re referencing. All I can suggest is for assuming the best intentions[1] in the messaging, rather than looking at the comment as being a note of discouragement. Communication can be tricky - even more so when done through an asynchronous medium, and any gesture to redirect folks to more meaningful ventures of contributions could be easily perceived as gatekeeping.
Fedora Project is a rather open space though. I don’t remember that any point in time my pull request was abruptly closed when I was trying to salvage EasyFix (remember my formative years in Fedora Project, @jflory7 before we kicked off the Fedora Websites and Apps Team? ) before we eventually had to shut it down. To be honest, I would have appreciated the “redirection” but different folks, different strokes?
I watch a lot of channels in Matrix, and I can remember about 5 times in the past year where people come in saying “I want to do x” and they get told “no that would not be productive.”
This is not a one off situation.
I agree that it is well intentioned, and neither Michael or I blame anyone. I suggest the culture could be analysed from the top down, starting with Red Hat, Leaders, Council and Mindshare.
BTW, Fedora is aleady the leader in a positive open source culture, and that is why we can speak freely of the issue.
I’m curious which event you think I’m referencing, because I’m actually referencing several . And not just in Matrix, but in some of our git activities too. (Though you might know which specific event caught me at the right time to make me finally come write this.)
Everyone has different motivations and motivators. Some people are eager to play with a new technology, some are excited to scratch their itch, some enjoy altruistic labor, and some get excited about results and care deeply that they’re doing the optimal thing the optimal way. It’s really difficult to know this about someone you just met, even if you’re meeting in person.
The important thing is to not box in their excitement prematurely. The response I suggested could be paraphrased as, “That work might be thrown away soon, but you’re welcome to do it anyway if you’re ok with that possibility and I’ll even help you.” It allows them to decide for themselves whether that aligns with their motivations. But if we make that value judgement for them then we’re basically telling them, “You want the wrong thing”, which is the same thing as, “your emotions are wrong.”
“Your excitement is wrong.” … No wonder they don’t come back!
Everyone reading this thread is drawn to technology like a moth to flame. But in these conversations, the technological specifics are almost a distraction. People are not a git commit with a side of emotion. They are here because of their emotions. And if we don’t pay some attention to that then that git commit (and the one after and the one after, and then the one after that which was actually really important) are gone.
@t0xic0der I enjoyed your blog post! If you haven’t read them yet, I think you would really enjoy the books Crucial Conversations and its sequel Crucial Accountability.
Don’t jump to Accountability first though! Crucial Conversations is eye-opening and possibly even life-changing if you soak in it long enough.
Ah, I am better off not referencing the event or the people involved. I don’t want to point fingers - even though I have communicated with one of them about this specific thread. There is a learning to be made here on all ends - mine too. While the intention of the messaging might not be for turning people away, it might still end up being understood as such. As a result, it is quite important for folks to both consider their phrasing (on sending end) and assume best intentions (on receiving end).
I was just discussing this with @theprogram about the legitimacy of the mindshare tag here when it was dawned upon me by @jflory7 that recognizing the enthusiasm of contribution is just as important as rewarding the continuous progress. Given that it is one of the things for me and @gwmngilfen to work on during our Mindshare term, this recognition could also be in the form of providing required accesses, offering technical/contextual know-how for contributors willing to work.
It is a tricky problem though - both sides (i.e. the redirecting and the seeking) mean well. It comes down to the verbosity of the message. Maybe we could follow up by asking them “If not that, what else can we help with?” and that way, not only folks get to work on something, but they also get to contribute meaningfully without having to worry about their code being replaced or removed in the close future. I cannot speak for others, but I can say that this soon-ish move would keep me from doing more.
Thanks for your kind words, @mwinters. I did have the experience of both the books as a part of a course cohort within Red Hat some years back. I do have my notes that I refer to every now and then, (and then some writings like the one you and @theprogram read to adapt the learnings in the ever-changing world of open source). These conversations work on a best efforts basis because there are always times when you look back and find at least 100 ways you could have done things better.
When I was a newbie I though that I might like to contribute, but I found that there were, generally speaking, too many hoops to jump through. It seemed to be more trouble than it was worth because the methodology was extremely rigid. For a newbie like myself (years ago) it was extremely frustrating. Additionally, from a then newbie’s point of view, there never seemed to be “anyone around” to help.
Yeh, mentoring and onboarding are always the tricky bits. We do have the Welcome to Fedora process in place now, so there’s at least a single point of contact for anyone looking to get involved. There are issues with the process too of course, and we’re hoping that as more and more people join us, we’ll be able to make updates/changes based on the feedback we get.
), but let’s avoid the word “newbie”. It’s somewhat patronising and in many places (like in game-related spaces) it’s even used derogatory. “Newcomer” is more neutral and doesn’t have negative connotations (AFAIK) 
) before we eventually had to shut it down. To be honest, I would have appreciated the “redirection” but different folks, different strokes?