Re: [gentoo-devrel] [Fwd: Finalizing the returning Dev policy]

[Mike Doty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> Forwarding this to the public list per Mike's request.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@g.o>
> Reply-To: dostrow@g.o
> To: devrel@g.o
> Subject: Finalizing the returning Dev policy
> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:25:28 -0400
>
> All:
>
> After talking it over with a few people at LWE I'd like to make a few
> modifications to the returning Dev (quasi-)policy...
>
> Note: Some of this may be in direct opposition to positions I have held
> on previous discussions of this topic, call me a flip-flopper if you
> must, all of the below is targeted at returning Devs who have
> voluntarily retired not towards those who have been suspended of forced
> into retirement. This is also not due to any particular incident or any
> particular Dev who wishes to return, it's just something that came up in
> discussion when a few Dev's had some rare face time.
>
> First off the things I agree with...
>
> 1). A retiring Dev should be given a 60 day leave of absence grace
> period to allow them to account for possible changes of heart. From our
> experiences in the past Real Life(TM) sometimes gets in the way and a 60
> day breather can sometimes help people find new time or get themselves
> reorganized.
>
> 2). There is a need for Devs who wish to return to have to take the quiz
> again. This does well as a good faith showing as well as making sure
> that the developer in question is up to date with present policy.
>
> Now the things I would like to see changed...
>
> 3). Returning Devs should not have to to find a mentor, somehow needing
> this just feels stupid...
>
> 4). The 30 day waiting period seems VERY excessive. I understand that
> there is a need to discourage this behavior but to be frank there is
> also good reason to encourage it. I propose that instead of forcing a
> 30day waiting period recruiters should just put the returning Dev at the
> end of their queue (e.g. not fast track their return by bumping it ahead
> of other Devs that recruiters are working on). This both alleviates the
> pressure on the recruiters and encourages good developers to return if
> mind you s they find they still have time for Gentoo in their lives.
>
> 5). If they do ridiculously badly on the quiz from (2) they should be
> treated as a new Dev needing to wait the 30 day period, but I think we
> can all assume that they have the wherewithal to find the information
> needed to update their skills to pass the quiz on their own, requiring
> any old Dev to find a new mentor for this purpose is insulting, likewise
> the probationary period following devship is also insulting, we trusted
> them with our tree once after all.
>
> I'd like to hear constructive comments on this. Especially from those
> that do recruiting now to know if this is a workable and acceptable
> policy change. I'd like to get this into an official doc as well so we
> don't have to keep looking back at old e-mail threads as a policy
> reference.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Dan

The entire recruitment process is going to be revamped.  I'll come out
with a general proposal shortly after the current recruitment queue is
at a sane spot.

In general I agree with what's said here.

- --
=======================================================
Mike Doty                           kingtaco@g.o
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead         PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7
Gentoo Developer Relations
                 ===GPG Fingerprint===
   0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFENxky0K3RJaeXx6cRAmstAJwO5Zm7DcV6qB57rvsJX+toRuewvwCfZhr9
uJgMiai5OswhoKFM7ViqEk0=
=WATv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list