| 1 |
On 14/10/16 05:31, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> All in all fair points. What do we do with developers who are |
| 4 |
> legitimately held up in RL affairs and have appropriately indicated so |
| 5 |
> in devaway? Consensus seems to hold that 6-9 months of inactivity could |
| 6 |
> be enough to invoke Undertaker action. Should that happen and a |
| 7 |
> developer come back, would they need to pass the ebuild tests again, or |
| 8 |
> merely talk to infra to get their account "unlocked" so to speak? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I ask because I can think of a few developers who aren't too active, but |
| 11 |
> I don't feel their dev status should be revoked for inactivity -- |
| 12 |
> especially if said inactivity is not something within their (easy) |
| 13 |
> control, like the birth of a child, crunch time at work, and so on. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> But I see the need to keep Gentoo not only clean, but secure. Automatic |
| 16 |
> 'locking' of an account after 6 months or something could help diminish |
| 17 |
> the attack surface of infra, and is easily reversible. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
+10 to all of this. |
Archives