| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I could MAYBE understand it if they're consuming some valuable |
| 3 |
> resource that we need to free up by retiring them. But instead they |
| 4 |
> get a nasty-gram about their impending retirement and decide if that's |
| 5 |
> how they are to be treated that they can be retired. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Could anybody post the text of one of these "nasty grams?" |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I can understand the sense in just checking in to make sure a |
| 10 |
developer still is interested in Gentoo and wants to retain cvs |
| 11 |
access. However, I think the bar for keeping access should be kept |
| 12 |
low - they shouldn't be forced to go find some trivial change to make |
| 13 |
just to get their name in the logs. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Sure, sometimes real life gets busy, but if a dev still runs Gentoo |
| 16 |
and has interest they're fairly likely to return when life settles |
| 17 |
down. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Quantity of contribution is not nearly as important as the |
| 20 |
contributions being net-positive. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives