1 |
On Monday, March 9, 2009 11:44:55 Doug Goldstein wrote: |
2 |
> I'm wondering what exactly is the harm in letting developers idle for a |
3 |
> while? While they might not be actively committing they are still |
4 |
> knowledgeable people that are just as capable as everyone else to push in a |
5 |
> fix for small packages. There's lots of bugs in bugzilla with items that |
6 |
> just need someone active to commit them. There's even a lot of these items |
7 |
> are filed by retired Gentoo developers who could have easily pushed this |
8 |
> fix for all users. The fact that someone only does one commit a year does |
9 |
> not marginalize their contribution. While it may be small it is improving |
10 |
> the overall quality of the distro. I'm constantly seeing developers getting |
11 |
> upset over getting pushed out. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> What we really need is not a smaller, leaner development force. But a |
14 |
> leadership team that's smaller and more effective and willing to take |
15 |
> charge to get something done. I'm hoping that we can get away from the 6 |
16 |
> month GLEP process and towards something more streamlined. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> -- |
19 |
> Doug Goldstein |
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
It is possible that maybe we've been too forceful in retiring people who still |
23 |
wish to contribute. Sometimes it appears that way from the outside. But as |
24 |
I am not on that team, I don't really know and therefore will not attempt to |
25 |
pass judgement on their processes. From what I have seen and understand they |
26 |
do try to make contact multiple times to understand the situation before |
27 |
retiring anyone. |
28 |
|
29 |
There is an important security aspect to retiring folks - commit abilities. |
30 |
Perhaps in the case a dev wants to contribute but cannot in the near future |
31 |
their commit privs can just be revoked until such time they ask for them to |
32 |
be turned back on? I guess that would be an 'extended devaway' ? |
33 |
|
34 |
Gordon Malm (gengor) |