1 |
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Markus Ullmann wrote: |
2 |
> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that |
3 |
> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period |
4 |
> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like |
7 |
> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough |
8 |
> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the |
9 |
> moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding maintainer-wanted). |
10 |
|
11 |
the metric for retirement lies with devrel and whatever sub projects they've |
12 |
partitioned/created for these topics. the larger developer base is free to |
13 |
make their opinions known to devrel on the various matters and if they feel |
14 |
things are not moving in the right direction, we can review the matter. but |
15 |
i would say this is hardly close to the point for us to review |
16 |
|
17 |
> Reason that brought it to attention is the retirement bug for the |
18 |
> current QA lead spb. (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64840) |
19 |
> |
20 |
> To resolve the current situation there I gave the advice to just hold |
21 |
> project lead votings that every project has to do every 12 months. |
22 |
|
23 |
i think the rules are in place to help keep things moving smoothly. in other |
24 |
words, they are guidelines which are not absolute, especially in an open |
25 |
source project such as ours. |
26 |
|
27 |
in this particular case, i would consider these facts to be self evident (and |
28 |
painfully so): |
29 |
- the current QA lead has effectively done nothing for the entire run of |
30 |
holding the position |
31 |
- the current QA lead is pretty inactive in many (most?) Gentoo things |
32 |
- the previous QA lead was very active in constantly improving Gentoo life |
33 |
- the previous QA lead would like to resume improving Gentoo life |
34 |
|
35 |
taking these facts into consideration, the logical move would be for the |
36 |
current QA lead to step down and allow the previous QA lead to step up. Mark |
37 |
has more than proved his constant drive for quality. Stephen on the other |
38 |
hand has done nothing of the sort. |
39 |
-mike |