| 1 |
Jorge, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 06/17/10 03:10, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 5 |
> So everyone can have an idea, I'd suggest looking at the list of the |
| 6 |
> open retirement bugs[1]. |
| 7 |
> As there seems to be some confusion about the policies to retire |
| 8 |
> developers, please read the undertakers page[2]. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Interesting links, thanks. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Two things come to my mind: Step 2 of the undertakers page reads: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
"When sending an email to the developer in question, make sure you |
| 16 |
tell him, that he might get retired due to being inactive." |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If I'm not mistaken this is telling the developer about potential |
| 19 |
retirement on first direct contact. If that's true I don't consider it |
| 20 |
very sensitive. After all our goal is to keep that developer in, not |
| 21 |
out. So my proposal is: please add another two weeks and a second mail |
| 22 |
so the first one does not mention retirement. How about that? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The other thing is: what are the reasons to retire inactive developers? |
| 26 |
Are these reasons documented somewhere? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Thanks! |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Sebastian |
Archives