Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] How do you feel about non-contributing developers with commit access?
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 05:13:10
Message-Id: CAGDaZ_pO0Gi2C2DzLmh9bVGQnSkuMiy1GFPUw=YeQU8=Dvo4ZA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] How do you feel about non-contributing developers with commit access? by "Sam Jorna (wraeth)"
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 5:11 PM Sam Jorna (wraeth) <wraeth@g.o> wrote:
> > On 3/11/18 2:05 am, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The Undertakers team has frequently received various forms of > > 'criticism' of their effort in attempting to find and retire inactive > > developers. This is getting as far as to claim that we shouldn't retire > > anyone because there are no limits on commit slots. > > > > Therefore, I would like to ask the wider community a general question: > > how do you feel about preserving commit access for people who no longer > > actively commit to Gentoo? I'm talking about extreme cases, say, > > no commits to any user-visible repository for over a year. > > Hello. > > I'd like to suggest that developers be allowed to retain commit > privileges until and unless they are unresponsive to status queries or > have demonstrated some kind of negative intent.
> I understand the concern of allowing commit access to persist for AWOL > contributors, but for those with low commit frequency it's effectively > saying "your volunteer contributions aren't enough".
And this is not in my opinion the kind of message we want to send, unless we want gentoo to become an elitist that only welcomes people who are "productive enough", which in my opinion also aggravates the risk of burnout. Quite frankly, "you aren't active enough to deserve to keep your developer status" is rather demoralizing, especially since we aren't actually being paid to work on Gentoo, at least not out of the Foundation's budget. 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
> For myself, due to various factors my time for productive commit > development is severely limited, but as I only maintain a couple of > packages which, to my knowledge, don't have any issues, removing commit > access just means those that I do maintain become orphaned, and when I > do get time to work on something I have to work through GitHub or > Bugzilla, increasing work for whichever developer is kind enough to > facilitate my contribution. I am, however, able to be reached quickly, > and responsive to queries. > > If a developer is present, is not neglecting anything they maintain, has > not demonstrated any malicious intent, and is offering to spend what > time they can on contributions when they have the time to ensure they > don't break anything, why stop them?
I second this motion. Having been removed from proxy maintainers for inactivity myself (and against my objections as well) I can speak to the increased load of being made aware of future bugs in the projects I used to work on. It adds unnecessary red tape to make developers jump through hoops to contribute. 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. Also, I would like to advance an example I personally encountered: What if there's simply nothing for the developer to do? Like if for example they're maintaining a package that's gone quiet upstream but which doesn't have any bugs open against it either? No, this doesn't include the idle developer simply finding a neglected area of gentoo to work on instead. The pool of available work to perform is still going to be finite, and on top of that the areas of gentoo needing attention when another area stops giving developers something to do may simply be outside their expertise. 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? If they answer their emails from the undertakers that should be good enough assuming they haven't actively gone against Gentoo. I would also like to ask: Why should we remove them in the first place? As far as I know, letting people keep developer status and commit access doesn't burden Gentoo unduly. * If they're contributing, the overhead of incorporating their contributions is an investment * If they're not contributing, but haven't done anything harmful, then there's no burden * If they're harming the distro then they can be removed whether they're a burden or not.
> Thanks; > -- > Sam Jorna (wraeth) > GPG ID: 0xD6180C26 >