| 1 |
Jorge, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 06/30/10 05:05, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 5 |
> The following is a list with a few reasons to retire inactive developers: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> * security considerations regarding access to Gentoo infra, including |
| 8 |
> tampering of the tree |
| 9 |
> * need to ensure that maintainers are accessible, take care of |
| 10 |
> packages and bugs and that they reply on due time to community |
| 11 |
> contacts and requests |
| 12 |
> * desire to have project and team membership, as well as package |
| 13 |
> maintenance reflect reality |
| 14 |
> * make it clear what areas of the project are understaffed and what |
| 15 |
> packages require new maintainers |
| 16 |
> * need to ensure that developers keep up to date regarding policies |
| 17 |
> and use of the tree by using it |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
interesting, thanks for elaborating. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I wonder if we could start making a stronger distinction between these |
| 22 |
two cases of retirement. If it isn't a throw-out I would prefer to have |
| 23 |
that made so very clear that no one ever feels thrown out that way. |
| 24 |
Especially that there's no guarantee to be allowed to return feels a bit |
| 25 |
odd to me. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Best, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Sebastian |
Archives