1 |
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Mike Doty wrote: |
2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
3 |
> > On 12:15 Tue 15 Jan , Markus Ullmann wrote: |
4 |
> >> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that |
5 |
> >> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period |
6 |
> >> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking. |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like |
9 |
> >> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough |
10 |
> >> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the |
11 |
> >> moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding |
12 |
> >> maintainer-wanted). |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > I don't see a good reason to turn away any amount of help, and I don't |
15 |
> > think we should ever forcibly retire developers because of inactivity. |
16 |
> > If we let them stay developers, they might continue contributing a few |
17 |
> > fixes we wouldn't otherwise get, or they may become more active again in |
18 |
> > the future. Developers are valuable people, and a lot of time has gone |
19 |
> > into their training and experience. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > Do I think we should reassign their packages after a while, if they need |
22 |
> > love? Sure. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > Do I think we should remove them from roles besides "ebuild developer"? |
25 |
> > Sure. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> How about calling them inactive. infra will remove cvs/svn/git access |
28 |
> and when they have time to contribute to a manner that we expect that |
29 |
> access can be restored. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Know that infra is/has been planning to automatically disable |
32 |
> cvs/svn/git access for those who haven't committed in some time period |
33 |
> (2 months is the current idea) |
34 |
|
35 |
the timeframe should follow whatever devrel is using (which i think is longer |
36 |
than 2 months) |
37 |
-mike |