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-project
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-project: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-project@g.o
From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 03:05:27 +0000
 -----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/
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=nZ75
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Replies:
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
-- Sebastian Pipping
References:
Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
-- PaweĊ‚ Hajdan, Jr.
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
-- Steve Dibb
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
-- Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
-- Sebastian Pipping
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-project: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
Next by thread:
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
Previous by date:
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo
Next by date:
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo


Updated Jul 05, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-project mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

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