1 |
Jorge, |
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
On 06/17/10 03:10, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
5 |
> So everyone can have an idea, I'd suggest looking at the list of the |
6 |
> open retirement bugs[1]. |
7 |
> As there seems to be some confusion about the policies to retire |
8 |
> developers, please read the undertakers page[2]. |
9 |
|
10 |
Interesting links, thanks. |
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
Two things come to my mind: Step 2 of the undertakers page reads: |
14 |
|
15 |
"When sending an email to the developer in question, make sure you |
16 |
tell him, that he might get retired due to being inactive." |
17 |
|
18 |
If I'm not mistaken this is telling the developer about potential |
19 |
retirement on first direct contact. If that's true I don't consider it |
20 |
very sensitive. After all our goal is to keep that developer in, not |
21 |
out. So my proposal is: please add another two weeks and a second mail |
22 |
so the first one does not mention retirement. How about that? |
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
The other thing is: what are the reasons to retire inactive developers? |
26 |
Are these reasons documented somewhere? |
27 |
|
28 |
Thanks! |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
Sebastian |