[maemo-community] Evaluating paid contributors (was Re: Sprint meeting & process)

From: Quim Gil quim.gil at nokia.com
Date: Thu Jun 18 10:25:00 EEST 2009
Let me go deeper in one point:

ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 16:10, Jeremiah
> Foster<jeremiah at jeremiahfoster.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2009, at 16:44, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>>> We haven't formalised exactly the process by which the 6-month
>>> contracts would get renewed (or not); but suffice to say "having a
>>> job" is a pretty big carrot and "not having a job" is a pretty big
>>> stick, IMHO.
>> Andrew, this is a threat. I think this is the wrong way to go about
>> getting people to report their status on the wiki.
> It is not intended as a threat: as I say, I don't know how Nokia will
> decide whether to continue funding positions, or renew individuals'
> contracts (hell, I haven't even seen the contracts, nor do I want to).

This is something we need to solve in the second half. By default any
paid maemo.org team member is there to stay, but an evaluation is needed
within two margins:

- You are actually doing the right work the community asks you and you
commit to do.

- You are fulfilling your minimum responsibilities and competences.
Below that we're sorry but we need to talk, and if the situation doesn't
improve we need to find someone else.

Regular reporting and the sprint process should be enough to handle the
first point. Just a note: these people paid need to send their (hour?)
report to Tero once a month to justify the money they are being paid.
Why not merge the reporting to Tero and to the community to simplify
their work?

For the second point, it's a tricky one because it poses a lot of
stress, not only to the evaluated workers thatn might or might not get
renewed but also to the ones supposed to evaluate that work (having
potentially a chance to decide that someone looses a job, the kind of
decision that is really not nice in life, leave alone in a community of

Some ideas that come to mind (Tero might correct me since he knows the
Nokia/lehal processes).

- One year contracts instead of 6 months.

- Evaluations and renewals done at the same time for all paid
contributors. For instance, evaluation starting in October and renewals
done in January - this way there is time to find a substitute if needed
and make a reasonable transition for the both persons involved in the role.

- Evaluation done by Nokia - Council - maemo.org team peers, defaulting
to renewal unless something big happens (poor performance, conflicts,
budget cut...) Executed by Nokia, since it's Nokia who pays and signs
the contract. Tero and myself being 'the bad cops', so no community
volunteer needs to to this nasty job.

Quim Gil
open source advocate
Maemo Devices @ Nokia
More information about the maemo-community mailing list