Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 03:05:55
Message-Id: 4C2AB477.3050309@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo by Sebastian Pipping
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 30-06-2010 00:12, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Jorge, > > > On 06/17/10 03:10, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >> So everyone can have an idea, I'd suggest looking at the list of >> the open retirement bugs[1]. As there seems to be some confusion >> about the policies to retire developers, please read the >> undertakers page[2]. > > Interesting links, thanks. > > > Two things come to my mind: Step 2 of the undertakers page reads: > > "When sending an email to the developer in question, make sure you > tell him, that he might get retired due to being inactive." > > If I'm not mistaken this is telling the developer about potential > retirement on first direct contact. If that's true I don't > consider it very sensitive. After all our goal is to keep that > developer in, not out. So my proposal is: please add another two > weeks and a second mail so the first one does not mention > retirement. How about that? >
One aspect of the undertakers work that is not mentioned in the project page is that we generally start our work from the mails people send announcing their retirement and from the automatic activity mails that are sent to our alias. So as stated in step 2 and after doing a filtering of active people from the above mails, we start by approaching developers, their project(s) lead(s) and the developers themselves trying to investigate whether a developer is MIA, really stopped contributing or if he / she is active in other ways. We only move on to step 3 where we reopen the bug and start sending the official e-mails about possible retirement, if we are convinced the developer is really inactive. You have a very good point and one that the undertakers team really embraces - the goal of the undertakers work is not to "kick" developers out, but to get them to resume contribution to the project. There are however certain minimal levels of commitment that we expect and ask from developers.
> > The other thing is: what are the reasons to retire inactive > developers? Are these reasons documented somewhere?
There are some considerations about retirement in section 3[1] of the "Developer Relations Policy Guide"[2] and the undertakers project page[3] states that undertakers "handle{s} developer retirement, both when developers announce their retirement as well as due to developer inactivity." The following is a list with a few reasons to retire inactive developers: * security considerations regarding access to Gentoo infra, including tampering of the tree * need to ensure that maintainers are accessible, take care of packages and bugs and that they reply on due time to community contacts and requests * desire to have project and team membership, as well as package maintenance reflect reality * make it clear what areas of the project are understaffed and what packages require new maintainers * need to ensure that developers keep up to date regarding policies and use of the tree by using it [1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml#doc_chap3 [2] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml [3] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/undertakers/index.xml#doc_chap1
> Thanks! > > > > Sebastian >
- -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMKrR3AAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPvDUQAKyvWFyJikHGk/oieYeGUQjH C6+t9NRGft1r2vjswRqtkFkyxIVfOBLQSXeFAP+fZa++q9o6E/F5ovqudg3V0t7s u1sXU3tHr2hTF9F78hNlkaUT0P1UIIV1Cj5/FYTrWcgPzYCL9aPkeFOKppP+9PPN Lpn1jLWrGvXnf6wICE41hmYSuBs43om1GxyNZz1G0nXE2YKUYqk9MUYGPA/PIaOp wotxPo6BZ2QBY5y+a+WxjHScaFQXJASPVlh+TwkEOZFUxnapVE4pGo5E1zRW3+iV D7F3efgUXCHTVMoV/iy3GM1Usx3XY3UdGySdKTqwgnISboVKLLJbTkjaENt8Cny0 Pqkc5KySObavmSlKj0b43/kfWegVwiwrdJt2a00LT/2YQOK/kxAv6w/lpJOaffin AT0KyGH10tObTIUcFcHjo4EZE6UdX5otYMKfokOzBuDiz2BCOQa95shDkIuJ2tcw pVSVYjVTyV1Ax2S/BNomVezmY24RCIjRkmxnxwyOfZhZhwprDoS2V9HQeFqwslfh 7EC9e+rTaqy+2WEHkLQ6Lte2B+tF1g56YA2fv+wKcbcP9Syltin1VnQvke6hS2eR jYYK3cUa0okB2G5FE5PmWsCKjfwoVyBQ8707ahGyf/QQbyiSvnTb8yjO9WP+CH7/ QvFZ7O+XzRzn5JUTy8pp =nZ75 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies