Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o, gentoo-infrastructure <gentoo-infrastructure@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:40:43
Message-Id: 1200516037.19699.18.camel@hangover
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps by Mike Frysinger
1 On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 06:43 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
2 > On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Mike Doty wrote:
3 > > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
4 > > > On 12:15 Tue 15 Jan , Markus Ullmann wrote:
5 > > >> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that
6 > > >> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period
7 > > >> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking.
8 > > >>
9 > > >> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like
10 > > >> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough
11 > > >> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the
12 > > >> moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding
13 > > >> maintainer-wanted).
14 > > >
15 > > > I don't see a good reason to turn away any amount of help, and I don't
16 > > > think we should ever forcibly retire developers because of inactivity.
17 > > > If we let them stay developers, they might continue contributing a few
18 > > > fixes we wouldn't otherwise get, or they may become more active again in
19 > > > the future. Developers are valuable people, and a lot of time has gone
20 > > > into their training and experience.
21 > > >
22 > > > Do I think we should reassign their packages after a while, if they need
23 > > > love? Sure.
24 > > >
25 > > > Do I think we should remove them from roles besides "ebuild developer"?
26 > > > Sure.
27 > >
28 > > How about calling them inactive. infra will remove cvs/svn/git access
29 > > and when they have time to contribute to a manner that we expect that
30 > > access can be restored.
31 > >
32 > > Know that infra is/has been planning to automatically disable
33 > > cvs/svn/git access for those who haven't committed in some time period
34 > > (2 months is the current idea)
35 >
36 > the timeframe should follow whatever devrel is using (which i think is longer
37 > than 2 months)
38
39
40 Any automated disconnects of cvs/svn/git would be done in conjunction
41 with the policy/desires that devrel takes. As is 60 days is what
42 triggers slacker alerts. That used to be 90 days but I think they
43 discovered along the way that even ~90 days was to long of a time frame.
44
45 Infra's only desire/care in this matter would be that we are not fans of
46 leaving open security holes. Every dev is considered a security risk.
47 That risk is perceived maximized by inactivity. More or less.. use it or
48 lose it.. (note infra is strictly talking about flipping bits in ldap to
49 disable write access to those repositories) and not fully automated
50 retirements.
51
52 --
53 Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
54 Gentoo Linux
55
56 --
57 gentoo-council@l.g.o mailing list