1 |
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Lukasz Damentko <rane@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Okay, let me explain in detail. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Undertakers contact devs who didn't touch CVS for at least two months, |
6 |
> are considered inactive in the bugzilla and have no current .away set. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> After the initial contact, something like 3/4 of e-mailed people |
9 |
> respond very quickly and explain why they are gone (usually family and |
10 |
> work trouble, weddings, army service, health issues, moving out/in and |
11 |
> so on, so called real life) and in such cases we do not retire them |
12 |
> but let them resolve whatever trouble they are in and return to the |
13 |
> project afterwards. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> There are dozens of devs in the project who had such a conversation |
16 |
> with me or other undertakers and all can confirm retirement was |
17 |
> abandoned right away after they gave valid reasons for their absence |
18 |
> and the only consequence was poking about missing .away and asking |
19 |
> when they are planning to get back to work. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Those people wouldn't even be contacted if their .aways stated why |
22 |
> they are gone and for how long. Therefore a REMINDER: Please do set |
23 |
> your .away. Thanks. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> The rest are usually people who already gave up on the project, just |
26 |
> for various reasons didn't say bye yet. They often have no commits for |
27 |
> many months despite undertakers poking them a bunch of times. Half a |
28 |
> year period without even touching CVS and bugs isn't that uncommon for |
29 |
> them. I can give you specific examples if you really want some. I'd |
30 |
> prefer to avoid pointing fingers at people though. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Those folks either say goodbye to everyone after being contacted by us |
33 |
> or do not respond at all, in which case, if we get no response to our |
34 |
> two e-mails and an open retirement bug from them after more than a |
35 |
> month, we consider them missing in action and go on with their |
36 |
> retirement. If they appear suddenly at any point of this procedure and |
37 |
> say they want to stay, we either abandon retirement completely or only |
38 |
> send them to recruiters to redo their quizzes if their absence was |
39 |
> extremely long. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> I don't think how we can proceed differently in above kinds of |
42 |
> situations. Do you suggest we stopped e-mailing people who seem gone |
43 |
> from the project (how would we find out those who are really gone |
44 |
> then?), stopped retiring people who mail -dev/-core and say goodbye or |
45 |
> stopped retiring people who aren't responding to their mail and bugs |
46 |
> named "Retire: Person's Name" for months? |
47 |
> |
48 |
> There's only one controversial group of inactive devs: |
49 |
> |
50 |
> There are some people who would prefer to stay in the project although |
51 |
> they can't really give a good reason what for. Usually they claim they |
52 |
> belong to a number of projects although they don't put any regular |
53 |
> work into any of them and leads of this projects often haven't even |
54 |
> heard there's such a person on board. They sometimes were members of |
55 |
> this projects years ago, sometimes wanted to be members and sometimes |
56 |
> only imagine they are members of them. I can give specific examples if |
57 |
> you insist. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> Those we try to encourage to find a new job within Gentoo and often |
60 |
> they do. I can name one who yesterday did start his new Gentoo work |
61 |
> after years of slacking. :-) |
62 |
> |
63 |
> They are the smallest group of those we contact and process, I could |
64 |
> maybe name 5 or 6 of those currently in Gentoo and that's it. There's |
65 |
> no pending retirement of such a person currently. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> Really. Situation you name, when someone wanted to stay in Gentoo |
68 |
> despite not doing any actual work and got retired happened once or |
69 |
> maybe twice during the last year out of about a hundred retirements we |
70 |
> have processed. And all were extreme cases of close to zero activity |
71 |
> over many years with no promise of it ever increasing. We consider |
72 |
> those very carefully, they are always consulted with devrel lead. This |
73 |
> kind of decision isn't made lightly I can assure you. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> Finally, if someone really wants to be a dev but got retired, he can |
76 |
> return to Gentoo within couple of weeks by reopening his retirement |
77 |
> bug, submitting quizzes to recruiters and waiting to get useradded. |
78 |
> Recruiters process returning devs extremely fast so returning to |
79 |
> Gentoo if someone really wants to isn't a problem at all. And there's |
80 |
> absolutely no way anyone from undertakers could stop someone from |
81 |
> being recruited again. |
82 |
> |
83 |
> So summarising, the situation you're complaining about is extremely |
84 |
> marginal. You are invited to subscribe to retirement@ alias and read |
85 |
> its logs on bugzilla and see for yourself how rare occurrence it is. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> I hope I explained everything completely. I'm happy to take questions |
88 |
> if you have any, and of course am open to suggestions. |
89 |
> |
90 |
> Kind regards, |
91 |
> |
92 |
> Lukasz Damentko |
93 |
> |
94 |
> |
95 |
Granted the people I've recently talked to about this or the people I |
96 |
remember bringing this issue up in the past had this happen to them before |
97 |
we had this firm policy in place so really you're addressing a lot of the |
98 |
issues. |
99 |
|
100 |
But the whole act of making them go through all the hoops as a brand new |
101 |
developer is somewhat put off-ish to people wanting to come back. I honestly |
102 |
can't think of one developer that's come back and hasn't been up in arms |
103 |
about being made to go through all the hoops of a new developer. |