Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 17:22:59
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status by "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)"
On 15/04/18 17:55, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> This is not what I'm saying. In fact current practice is different from > what you purvey: > * Ebuild developers are usually asked about reassignment: see > or > > * If they state they are interested in maintaining the packages they are > allowed to do so (I guess unless the council decides to reassign them). > > Here is a similar approach that would work for both: > * Once a developer has been inactive for x time (for example not having > voted on two consecutive council electiions), the developer is contacted > by undertakers and asked whether he/she/it is still interested in Gentoo > and has contributed soomething that went missing in this period. > Undertakers also give a deadline for a reply. > ** If the answer is afirmative and the developer sends some > contributions the undertakers close the issue. > ** If the answer is negative but the developer wants to continue > contributing, the undertaker can provide advice on how to do so and > extend the deadline a bit (after which the developer will be retired and > invited to take the tests). > ** If the answer is negative and the developer is okay with retiring, > retirement is done. > ** If no reply is obtained before the deadline, retirement is done. > > Turns out that this is, in a way, the process documented on the > Undertakers project itself: >
I have long thought there could be improvements to the Undertakers process, and I think developers that have been MIA for some time (for whatever circumstances) have some checks made that they are indeed up-to-speed with any policy changes that may have happened since their last 'active' period. This would be not to penalise them, but ensure that the Quality standards that Gentoo holds, are upheld, and devs don't get to run riot once their initial 'assessment' and recruitment phases are over. It would provide a better 'continual development' track that could be expanded into other areas if proven and desirable. My ideas went so far as: -- if Dev does not set Devaway, and/or devaway period is over ~6months (say) and activity has fallen to zero .. commit privs get automatically revoked (by script, not by human). An automated email is sent out to that Dev, encouraging them to contact [insert project here] (eg. Council, ComReS, DevRel, etc) if there is good reason for the absence, the privs can be reinstated after a petition has been received and reviewed. -- A fast-track re-fresher training is provided by Recruiters, which brings an existing or elapsed dev back up to current standards. Such topics as new EAPIs, QA tracks, and policy updates could be covered in a couple of 'sessions' and then commit privs can be reinstated. I think this would improve the situation where some devs commit in large 'bursts' in between significant lapses in activity, causing a lot of distress to other more regular contributors and disrupting some of the more consistent ongoing efforts.


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o>