Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] The problem of defunct and undermanned projects in Gentoo
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:56:51
Message-Id: 20170719075622.293bff90@katipo2.lan
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] The problem of defunct and undermanned projects in Gentoo by "Michał Górny"
1 On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 23:12:42 +0200
2 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > What do you think? Would you mind getting that amount of mail once?
5 > Any other ideas?
6
7 From the mail I got, ( which I didn't mind ), I felt there was one
8 distinguisher that was missing:
9
10 "active" vs "passive" membership.
11
12 Like, I get the impression ( with perl for instance ) that although
13 many of its members are "around", and they occasionally "do something",
14 I'm not sure they can all count as "There" in terms of staff-power
15 metrics.
16
17 If you make one commit every 6 months, are you really still "active"?
18
19 Its useful to keep them all on the list, because they're people who
20 have knowledge and can do the work if it comes there way, so I don't
21 think *removing* them is the right thing to do.
22
23 But for keeping tabs on "do we need more staff or not", it just serves
24 as a confusing source of data.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] The problem of defunct and undermanned projects in Gentoo "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org>