| 1 |
On 6/11/18 4:12 pm, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
| 2 |
> From what I know, the undertakers project already has procedures in |
| 3 |
> place for determining if a developer is inactive before they are |
| 4 |
> retired, and I think the same procedures would apply just as easily |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, and it's kind of the crux of the |
| 7 |
question as I understand it - should $developer who appears inactive |
| 8 |
based on $policy be forcibly retired. I'm suggesting $policy cater for |
| 9 |
low commit frequency with no outstanding issues so long as they're |
| 10 |
available (or reasonably devaway) and not detrimental to the distro. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> At the very least, once someone has passed muster with recruiters and |
| 13 |
> whatnot they shouldn't have to do a heap of paperwork just to get back |
| 14 |
> in. Maybe email once every few months to see if they're still |
| 15 |
> responsive, and a quick check to make sure their SSH/GPG keys are |
| 16 |
> still |
| 17 |
> valid and that there are no technical issues, but I oppose any changes |
| 18 |
> in one's status as a developer just on inactivity alone. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think this is also touching on another issue - re-recruitment of |
| 21 |
previous developers. I agree with making sure things like keys are |
| 22 |
up-to-date and there aren't any outstanding technical, maintenance, or |
| 23 |
security issues, though. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> If someone has proven they can contribute and be trusted they |
| 26 |
> shouldn't be removed in my opinion. As long as they aren't slacking |
| 27 |
> off or sabotaging the distro. Going AWOL /with/ outstanding work on |
| 28 |
> your desk, such as open bugs against packages you maintain? That is |
| 29 |
> more serious and should probably warrant attention from the |
| 30 |
> undertakers. But just going quiet period? Not so much since their |
| 31 |
> absence isn't hurting Gentoo. The question is: is their retention of |
| 32 |
> access causing harm to gentoo or obstructing development? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I don't think it's a question of obstructing development but of ensuring |
| 35 |
there aren't any holes in security, such as retaining access for someone |
| 36 |
that no-one's heard from and, as such, could have had anything happen, |
| 37 |
including having passwords or keys stolen. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I do think that gauging the difference between inactive and infrequent |
| 40 |
is difficult, and don't really have any constructive suggestions on that |
| 41 |
point as yet. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Sam Jorna (wraeth) |
| 45 |
GPG ID: 0xD6180C26 |
Archives