Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Mike Doty <kingtaco@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] [Fwd: Finalizing the returning Dev policy]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:00:05
Message-Id: 44371933.6000905@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-devrel] [Fwd: Finalizing the returning Dev policy] by Daniel Ostrow
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> Forwarding this to the public list per Mike's request. > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@g.o> > Reply-To: dostrow@g.o > To: devrel@g.o > Subject: Finalizing the returning Dev policy > Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:25:28 -0400 > > All: > > After talking it over with a few people at LWE I'd like to make a few > modifications to the returning Dev (quasi-)policy... > > Note: Some of this may be in direct opposition to positions I have held > on previous discussions of this topic, call me a flip-flopper if you > must, all of the below is targeted at returning Devs who have > voluntarily retired not towards those who have been suspended of forced > into retirement. This is also not due to any particular incident or any > particular Dev who wishes to return, it's just something that came up in > discussion when a few Dev's had some rare face time. > > First off the things I agree with... > > 1). A retiring Dev should be given a 60 day leave of absence grace > period to allow them to account for possible changes of heart. From our > experiences in the past Real Life(TM) sometimes gets in the way and a 60 > day breather can sometimes help people find new time or get themselves > reorganized. > > 2). There is a need for Devs who wish to return to have to take the quiz > again. This does well as a good faith showing as well as making sure > that the developer in question is up to date with present policy. > > Now the things I would like to see changed... > > 3). Returning Devs should not have to to find a mentor, somehow needing > this just feels stupid... > > 4). The 30 day waiting period seems VERY excessive. I understand that > there is a need to discourage this behavior but to be frank there is > also good reason to encourage it. I propose that instead of forcing a > 30day waiting period recruiters should just put the returning Dev at the > end of their queue (e.g. not fast track their return by bumping it ahead > of other Devs that recruiters are working on). This both alleviates the > pressure on the recruiters and encourages good developers to return if > mind you s they find they still have time for Gentoo in their lives. > > 5). If they do ridiculously badly on the quiz from (2) they should be > treated as a new Dev needing to wait the 30 day period, but I think we > can all assume that they have the wherewithal to find the information > needed to update their skills to pass the quiz on their own, requiring > any old Dev to find a new mentor for this purpose is insulting, likewise > the probationary period following devship is also insulting, we trusted > them with our tree once after all. > > I'd like to hear constructive comments on this. Especially from those > that do recruiting now to know if this is a workable and acceptable > policy change. I'd like to get this into an official doc as well so we > don't have to keep looking back at old e-mail threads as a policy > reference. > > Thanks, > > --Dan
The entire recruitment process is going to be revamped. I'll come out with a general proposal shortly after the current recruitment queue is at a sane spot. In general I agree with what's said here. - -- ======================================================= Mike Doty kingtaco@g.o Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7 Gentoo Developer Relations ===GPG Fingerprint=== 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 ======================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFENxky0K3RJaeXx6cRAmstAJwO5Zm7DcV6qB57rvsJX+toRuewvwCfZhr9 uJgMiai5OswhoKFM7ViqEk0= =WATv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list