Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" <wraeth@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] How do you feel about non-contributing developers with commit access?
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 09:16:35
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] How do you feel about non-contributing developers with commit access? by Raymond Jennings
On 6/11/18 4:12 pm, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> From what I know, the undertakers project already has procedures in > place for determining if a developer is inactive before they are > retired, and I think the same procedures would apply just as easily
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, and it's kind of the crux of the question as I understand it - should $developer who appears inactive based on $policy be forcibly retired. I'm suggesting $policy cater for low commit frequency with no outstanding issues so long as they're available (or reasonably devaway) and not detrimental to the distro.
> At the very least, once someone has passed muster with recruiters and > whatnot they shouldn't have to do a heap of paperwork just to get back > in. Maybe email once every few months to see if they're still > responsive, and a quick check to make sure their SSH/GPG keys are > still > valid and that there are no technical issues, but I oppose any changes > in one's status as a developer just on inactivity alone.
I think this is also touching on another issue - re-recruitment of previous developers. I agree with making sure things like keys are up-to-date and there aren't any outstanding technical, maintenance, or security issues, though.
> If someone has proven they can contribute and be trusted they > shouldn't be removed in my opinion. As long as they aren't slacking > off or sabotaging the distro. Going AWOL /with/ outstanding work on > your desk, such as open bugs against packages you maintain? That is > more serious and should probably warrant attention from the > undertakers. But just going quiet period? Not so much since their > absence isn't hurting Gentoo. The question is: is their retention of > access causing harm to gentoo or obstructing development?
I don't think it's a question of obstructing development but of ensuring there aren't any holes in security, such as retaining access for someone that no-one's heard from and, as such, could have had anything happen, including having passwords or keys stolen. I do think that gauging the difference between inactive and infrequent is difficult, and don't really have any constructive suggestions on that point as yet. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GPG ID: 0xD6180C26


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] How do you feel about non-contributing developers with commit access? Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>