| 1 |
> > - Double the number of developers with aggressive recruiting |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Why do people think that this is a good idea? I have a different one. |
| 4 |
> How about we *half* the number of developers, keeping the people who do |
| 5 |
> the most work, and let everyone else contribute as members of the |
| 6 |
> community? Having developers on projects/teams/herds/whatever that do |
| 7 |
> only a few commits a year doesn't do anything but artificially inflate |
| 8 |
> our numbers. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Even if someone only does a little bit of work (maintaining a package |
| 11 |
or two and only doing one or two commits per month), it is better than |
| 12 |
none. Does having active accounts for these people produce very much |
| 13 |
extra work for infra or anyone else? I only see it as a benefit to |
| 14 |
users (things get done faster) and developers (one less bug to fix). |
| 15 |
The only problem I have with low activity developers is when they |
| 16 |
don't commit fixes for bugs that are assigned to them in a timely |
| 17 |
manner. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > - Devs can only belong to 5 projects at most |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> This is a really bad idea. Some developers simply work |
| 22 |
> harder/faster/more than others. Setting up some artificial limitation |
| 23 |
> on how many projects one can belong to won't help. Perhaps a better |
| 24 |
> solution here is that all developers must belong to at least one |
| 25 |
> project? Coupled with this would be that there would be certain |
| 26 |
> expectations within the project for work completed. Developers who do |
| 27 |
> not meet the "quota" are removed from the project. Get removed from all |
| 28 |
> your projects and get retired. Simple as that. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I really like your idea. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives