1 |
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 09:21 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> Regardless, as long as devs actually follow policy I don't see any need |
3 |
> to boot them. Maybe very long periods of inactivity should result in |
4 |
> having accounts locked as a security measure (so that we don't end up |
5 |
> with hundreds of ssh keys with commit access floating around who knows |
6 |
> where). Booting out lots of devs just takes a limited set of resources |
7 |
> and limits them further. If anything we want to find a way to let more |
8 |
> people contribute in a significant way - not less... |
9 |
|
10 |
I think many people seem to forget that it isn't the number of |
11 |
developers or the number of commits. It is all about the amount of |
12 |
actual work that gets done. We need more work being done. Period. It |
13 |
doesn't matter how that gets accomplished, but it is what we need. |
14 |
Removing less active developers would be perfectly fine once we had a |
15 |
good proxy maintainer program in place that would allow people to |
16 |
contribute easily without having to have commit access. A developer who |
17 |
only commits rarely isn't any more valuable to Gentoo than a "regular |
18 |
user" who contributes at the same pace. The only difference is the |
19 |
commit access and the Gentoo resources used by the individual. |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Chris Gianelloni |
23 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
24 |
Games Developer |
25 |
-- |
26 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |