twolfson

[gratipay-bot]

https://gratipay.com/twolfson/

(This application will remain open for at least a week.)

[chadwhitacre]

Thanks for the application @twolfson, and sorry for the frustration. We did try communicating via email, blog, and Twitter for the past five months. Turns out it's hard to reach everybody. :-(

Anyway, we didn't make our deadline for refunds, so the immediate pressure is off. We should have a blog post out with details about that soon.

Regarding your Team application here, it looks to me like it falls under the conversation we're having over at #82. Feel free to join us over there and we'll circle back here once it's clear how we should proceed.

[twolfson]

I never got any email despite it being on file -- we might want to double check our mail logs =/

With respect to #82, I will definitely chime in. Thanks =)

[chadwhitacre]

@twolfson Mandrill (our mail vendor) only logs for 90 days, and the relevant email blast we did was longer ago than that. It was associated with the Gratipay 2.0 blog post. We ended up not doing an additional email blast when we published "$130,000," because we caught flak from the 2.0 blast from people who considered it spam. :-/

Anyway, sorry for the missed signal, and luckily it's all moot after all. :-)

[twolfson]

Ah k. I got that email. iirc I read the first portion of it and then assumed the rest was inner details, I must have skimmed over the "Apply for a team" part =(

Thanks for clearing up my confusion =)

[chadwhitacre]

Yeah, it was pretty packed. Understandable to have skimmed it. :-)

[chadwhitacre]

Circling back here after #82. We'll need a better onboarding URL, and we should probably wait for #107 to play out as well.

[chadwhitacre]

I don't plan on making a case against twolfson for brand-fit (cf. #107).

[chadwhitacre]

@twolfson Can we talk links?

First, did you explicitly choose author:twolfson over user:twolfson? I ask because the former includes your tickets in others' repos (flask, vcrpy, etc.). It seems like that latter, scoped to your own repos, may be more appropriate?

Secondly, can we find a better onboarding URL? Something that explains your contributor policies for your projects?

[twolfson]

Cool, glad to hear this is back to moving forward.

With respect to the "To-Do" link, I believe I explicitly chose author:twolfson. If we discard the viewpoint of this being about multiple persons and focus it as "What do I have to do/what am I working on". Then, it becomes clear that my work is not exclusively limited to my own repos (e.g. if I contribute to jscs).

To rephrase that, someone who is supporting me is not exclusively supporting repos owned by me but the work that I am performing (which may not be limited to repos owned by myself).

On a related note, I am the core maintainer of spritesmith which is still owned by the Ensighten organization https://github.com/Ensighten/spritesmith

With respect to an onboarding URL, it seems kind of silly since I am only 1 person. There's this paragraph in a recent article I wrote which probably applies:

http://twolfson.com/2015-11-07-how-to-stay-passionate-about-open-source#provide-great-customer-support

but as far as a CONTRIBUTING.md that seems backwards for when it's only me =/

[mattbk]

I'm not sure you're still interested in this, but to try to answer your questions: Gratipay 2.0 is about open work, or work that someone with the skills could start without needing to ask your permission. Pull requests on GitHub are a prime example of this--you don't have to accept anyone's PR, but they also don't have to ask you before they start trying to help.

If your personal team is not open to contributions from others, does it qualify as open work? I'm still not sure what the deal is, waiting for a response from @whit537 over at https://github.com/gratipay/gratipay.com/issues/3433#issuecomment-159351933. If "allowing personal teams" means we're not operating on the open work requirement, then it seems straightforward to approve you.

[chadwhitacre]

If we discard the viewpoint of this being about multiple persons

Right, so ... we're not actually discarding that viewpoint. Every Team on Gratipay is an open organization, even if it's named after an individual person—"open" meaning that anyone at any time can start working for your organization without having to explicitly coordinate with you first. In other words, you should think of twolfson on Gratipay as "a company named after you," not simply "you." I've been unpacking this further at https://github.com/gratipay/gratipay.com/issues/3433#issuecomment-159934765.

Does that make any sense?

[twolfson]

Sorry for my slow response. Your approach makes sense but it doesn't align with how I would like to handle new contributors.

For me, I will typically invite a collaborator to a repo after 1 or 2 non-trivial PRs (e.g. adding a feature, patching a bug). If the collaborator becomes autonomous (e.g. continues to implement features, patch bugs), then I would consider the repo no longer being a "twolfson" repo but team-esque and would likely request to create a new Gratipay team for that repo.

However, in that scenario nobody else would ever really join the "twolfson" Gratipay team =/ Only repos would break off from the "twolfson" Gratipay team.

[chadwhitacre]

@twolfson I've opened a discussion about decoupling payments from payroll, which I think would free us up to move forward here. https://github.com/gratipay/inside.gratipay.com/issues/432

[daurnimator]

I too operate in the manner described by twolfson.

[mattbk]

@twolfson, we've updated the Terms of Service, so your project is now approved (we also changed "teams" to "projects"). Please read the new ToS. Welcome to Gratipay!

[twolfson]

Wow, was not expecting that news today. Thanks for the heads up/acceptance =)