1 |
Forwarding this to the public list per Mike's request. |
2 |
|
3 |
-------- Forwarded Message -------- |
4 |
From: Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@g.o> |
5 |
Reply-To: dostrow@g.o |
6 |
To: devrel@g.o |
7 |
Subject: Finalizing the returning Dev policy |
8 |
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:25:28 -0400 |
9 |
|
10 |
All: |
11 |
|
12 |
After talking it over with a few people at LWE I'd like to make a few |
13 |
modifications to the returning Dev (quasi-)policy... |
14 |
|
15 |
Note: Some of this may be in direct opposition to positions I have held |
16 |
on previous discussions of this topic, call me a flip-flopper if you |
17 |
must, all of the below is targeted at returning Devs who have |
18 |
voluntarily retired not towards those who have been suspended of forced |
19 |
into retirement. This is also not due to any particular incident or any |
20 |
particular Dev who wishes to return, it's just something that came up in |
21 |
discussion when a few Dev's had some rare face time. |
22 |
|
23 |
First off the things I agree with... |
24 |
|
25 |
1). A retiring Dev should be given a 60 day leave of absence grace |
26 |
period to allow them to account for possible changes of heart. From our |
27 |
experiences in the past Real Life(TM) sometimes gets in the way and a 60 |
28 |
day breather can sometimes help people find new time or get themselves |
29 |
reorganized. |
30 |
|
31 |
2). There is a need for Devs who wish to return to have to take the quiz |
32 |
again. This does well as a good faith showing as well as making sure |
33 |
that the developer in question is up to date with present policy. |
34 |
|
35 |
Now the things I would like to see changed... |
36 |
|
37 |
3). Returning Devs should not have to to find a mentor, somehow needing |
38 |
this just feels stupid... |
39 |
|
40 |
4). The 30 day waiting period seems VERY excessive. I understand that |
41 |
there is a need to discourage this behavior but to be frank there is |
42 |
also good reason to encourage it. I propose that instead of forcing a |
43 |
30day waiting period recruiters should just put the returning Dev at the |
44 |
end of their queue (e.g. not fast track their return by bumping it ahead |
45 |
of other Devs that recruiters are working on). This both alleviates the |
46 |
pressure on the recruiters and encourages good developers to return if |
47 |
mind you s they find they still have time for Gentoo in their lives. |
48 |
|
49 |
5). If they do ridiculously badly on the quiz from (2) they should be |
50 |
treated as a new Dev needing to wait the 30 day period, but I think we |
51 |
can all assume that they have the wherewithal to find the information |
52 |
needed to update their skills to pass the quiz on their own, requiring |
53 |
any old Dev to find a new mentor for this purpose is insulting, likewise |
54 |
the probationary period following devship is also insulting, we trusted |
55 |
them with our tree once after all. |
56 |
|
57 |
I'd like to hear constructive comments on this. Especially from those |
58 |
that do recruiting now to know if this is a workable and acceptable |
59 |
policy change. I'd like to get this into an official doc as well so we |
60 |
don't have to keep looking back at old e-mail threads as a policy |
61 |
reference. |
62 |
|
63 |
Thanks, |
64 |
|
65 |
--Dan |
66 |
|
67 |
|
68 |
|
69 |
|
70 |
-- |
71 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |