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

the timeframe should follow whatever devrel is using (which i think is longer 
than 2 months)
-mike