| 1 |
2009/3/10 Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> So really an effective solution might be for the recruiters/retirement staff |
| 3 |
> to change a user's shell with a script that spits out a message that says |
| 4 |
> something to the effect of: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> "You have been inactive for a while. Please contact recruiters to re-enable |
| 7 |
> your account. This was done as a security measure." |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Obviously a little friendlier would be better but everyone gets the gist. |
| 10 |
> That'll prevent them from logging into infra boxes and from being able to do |
| 11 |
> a commit. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
First of all there's been a lot of returning devs from whom I heard no |
| 15 |
word of complaint about the procedure. Bonsaikitten is one of them if |
| 16 |
this argument really requires an example. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Now, if someone can't, has no time or is unwilling to redo his quiz... |
| 19 |
what makes you think this person will make a good developer later on? |
| 20 |
What will ensure quality of his contributions? After months or (in |
| 21 |
most cases) years of not being a developer it's very likely the person |
| 22 |
is out of touch with most current things in Gentoo and a conversation |
| 23 |
with a recruiter may be really good learning experience. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I heard multiple times from recruiters that this is procedure is |
| 26 |
necessary for returning developers. If you ask them, I'm sure they |
| 27 |
will confirm those devs often need such refreshing and also are |
| 28 |
appreciating the time put into it from the recruiting team. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Finally, what you are proposing (which I read as infra suspending |
| 31 |
their access automatically instead of me or other undertaker |
| 32 |
contacting the person first) far harsher and putting off than pretty |
| 33 |
soft (and many say too soft) procedures we have now. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I personally would prefer to talk to such a person before suspending |
| 36 |
them anything happens. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Please also remember that if we suspend access automatically and it's |
| 39 |
suspended for some time, it will require jumping through hoops upon |
| 40 |
returning just like one has to jump through them when being recruited |
| 41 |
back. I don't think QA will allow us to just give access back without |
| 42 |
prior checking if the person is current with everything a developer |
| 43 |
should know. And if they did allow that, I wouldn't consider this a |
| 44 |
good thing. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Kind regards, |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Lukasz Damentko |
Archives