Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-devrel
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-devrel: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-devrel@g.o
From: Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@g.o>
Subject: [Fwd: Finalizing the returning Dev policy]
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:25:19 -0400
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




-- 
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list


Replies:
Re: [Fwd: Finalizing the returning Dev policy]
-- Mike Doty
Re: [Fwd: Finalizing the returning Dev policy]
-- Mike Frysinger
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-devrel: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
user representatives?
Next by thread:
Re: [Fwd: Finalizing the returning Dev policy]
Previous by date:
Re: user representatives?
Next by date:
Re: [Fwd: Finalizing the returning Dev policy]


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-devrel mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.