Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Time based retirements

[Markos Chandras]

On 21 December 2012 06:09, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
> Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:33:55 -0500 as excerpted:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o>
>> wrote:
>>> I could MAYBE understand it if they're consuming some valuable resource
>>> that we need to free up by retiring them. But instead they get a
>>> nasty-gram about their impending retirement and decide if that's how
>>> they are to be treated that they can be retired.
>>
>> Could anybody post the text of one of these "nasty grams?"
>>
>> I can understand the sense in just checking in to make sure a developer
>> still is interested in Gentoo and wants to retain cvs access.  However,
>> I think the bar for keeping access should be kept low - they shouldn't
>> be forced to go find some trivial change to make just to get their name
>> in the logs.
>>
>> Sure, sometimes real life gets busy, but if a dev still runs Gentoo and
>> has interest they're fairly likely to return when life settles down.
>
> Obviously I can't post the text of one of these "nasty grams", but I was
> around when the idea was first discussed and then implemented, by
> undertakers and infra, with the blessing of either council or whatever it
> was that came before (I was young in gentoo back then and didn't have a
> clear understanding of how it all worked, but when I started, drobbins
> was still around, but in the process of setting up the foundation and etc
> so he could leave gentoo in good shape when he did retire, and IIRC/
> AFAIK, he had turned things over to some sort of interrim executive
> committee... and I don't recall whether the events here predated what we
> call council today, or not).
>

Sorry, this e-mail is huge for a topic like this. Please consider
breaking your thoughts into logical chunks.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2