List Archive: gentoo-devrel
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> Forwarding this to the public list per Mike's request.
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Daniel Ostrow <email@example.com>
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Finalizing the returning Dev policy
> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:25:28 -0400
> 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
> 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7
Gentoo Developer Relations
0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v188.8.131.52 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
email@example.com mailing list