1 |
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Markus Ullmann wrote: |
3 |
> > our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that |
4 |
> > do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period |
5 |
> > ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like |
8 |
> > $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough |
9 |
> > bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the |
10 |
> > moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding maintainer-wanted). |
11 |
> |
12 |
> the metric for retirement lies with devrel and whatever sub projects |
13 |
> they've partitioned/created for these topics. the larger developer base is |
14 |
> free to make their opinions known to devrel on the various matters and if |
15 |
> they feel things are not moving in the right direction, we can review the |
16 |
> matter. but i would say this is hardly close to the point for us to review |
17 |
> |
18 |
> > Reason that brought it to attention is the retirement bug for the |
19 |
> > current QA lead spb. (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64840) |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > To resolve the current situation there I gave the advice to just hold |
22 |
> > project lead votings that every project has to do every 12 months. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> i think the rules are in place to help keep things moving smoothly. in |
25 |
> other words, they are guidelines which are not absolute, especially in an |
26 |
> open source project such as ours. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> in this particular case, i would consider these facts to be self evident |
29 |
> (and painfully so): |
30 |
> - the current QA lead has effectively done nothing for the entire run of |
31 |
> holding the position |
32 |
> - the current QA lead is pretty inactive in many (most?) Gentoo things |
33 |
> - the previous QA lead was very active in constantly improving Gentoo life |
34 |
> - the previous QA lead would like to resume improving Gentoo life |
35 |
> |
36 |
> taking these facts into consideration, the logical move would be for the |
37 |
> current QA lead to step down and allow the previous QA lead to step up. |
38 |
> Mark has more than proved his constant drive for quality. Stephen on the |
39 |
> other hand has done nothing of the sort. |
40 |
|
41 |
along these lines, if the situation does not resolve itself, i would ask for |
42 |
us to vote on the matter come our next council meeting. i believe without a |
43 |
doubt that Mark in anything but the QA lead role would be a huge disservice |
44 |
to the entire project. |
45 |
-mike |