On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2008, 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).
>
> the metric for retirement lies with devrel and whatever sub projects
> they've partitioned/created for these topics.  the larger developer base is
> free to make their opinions known to devrel on the various matters and if
> they feel things are not moving in the right direction, we can review the
> matter.  but i would say this is hardly close to the point for us to review
>
> > Reason that brought it to attention is the retirement bug for the
> > current QA lead spb. (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64840)
> >
> > To resolve the current situation there I gave the advice to just hold
> > project lead votings that every project has to do every 12 months.
>
> i think the rules are in place to help keep things moving smoothly.  in
> other words, they are guidelines which are not absolute, especially in an
> open source project such as ours.
>
> in this particular case, i would consider these facts to be self evident
> (and painfully so):
>  - the current QA lead has effectively done nothing for the entire run of
> holding the position
>  - the current QA lead is pretty inactive in many (most?) Gentoo things
>  - the previous QA lead was very active in constantly improving Gentoo life
>  - the previous QA lead would like to resume improving Gentoo life
>
> taking these facts into consideration, the logical move would be for the
> current QA lead to step down and allow the previous QA lead to step up. 
> Mark has more than proved his constant drive for quality.  Stephen on the
> other hand has done nothing of the sort.

along these lines, if the situation does not resolve itself, i would ask for 
us to vote on the matter come our next council meeting.  i believe without a 
doubt that Mark in anything but the QA lead role would be a huge disservice 
to the entire project.
-mike