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
On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 06:43 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Mike Doty wrote: > > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > On 12:15 Tue 15 Jan , Markus Ullmann wrote: > > >> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that > > >> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period > > >> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking. > > >> > > >> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like > > >> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough > > >> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the > > >> moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding > > >> maintainer-wanted). > > > > > > I don't see a good reason to turn away any amount of help, and I don't > > > think we should ever forcibly retire developers because of inactivity. > > > If we let them stay developers, they might continue contributing a few > > > fixes we wouldn't otherwise get, or they may become more active again in > > > the future. Developers are valuable people, and a lot of time has gone > > > into their training and experience. > > > > > > Do I think we should reassign their packages after a while, if they need > > > love? Sure. > > > > > > Do I think we should remove them from roles besides "ebuild developer"? > > > Sure. > > > > How about calling them inactive. infra will remove cvs/svn/git access > > and when they have time to contribute to a manner that we expect that > > access can be restored. > > > > Know that infra is/has been planning to automatically disable > > cvs/svn/git access for those who haven't committed in some time period > > (2 months is the current idea) > > the timeframe should follow whatever devrel is using (which i think is longer > than 2 months)
Any automated disconnects of cvs/svn/git would be done in conjunction with the policy/desires that devrel takes. As is 60 days is what triggers slacker alerts. That used to be 90 days but I think they discovered along the way that even ~90 days was to long of a time frame. Infra's only desire/care in this matter would be that we are not fans of leaving open security holes. Every dev is considered a security risk. That risk is perceived maximized by inactivity. More or less.. use it or lose it.. (note infra is strictly talking about flipping bits in ldap to disable write access to those repositories) and not fully automated retirements. -- Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-council@l.g.o mailing list