[gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps

[gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps

[Markus Ullmann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 817 bytes --]

Hi guys,

our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that
do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period 
ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking.

I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like 
$count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough 
bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the 
moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding maintainer-wanted).

Reason that brought it to attention is the retirement bug for the
current QA lead spb. (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64840)

To resolve the current situation there I gave the advice to just hold
project lead votings that every project has to do every 12 months.

Thoughts?
-Jokey




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2107 bytes --]

On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that
> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period
> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking.
>
> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like
> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough
> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the
> moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding maintainer-wanted).

the metric for retirement lies with devrel and whatever sub projects they've 
partitioned/created for these topics.  the larger developer base is free to 
make their opinions known to devrel on the various matters and if they feel 
things are not moving in the right direction, we can review the matter.  but 
i would say this is hardly close to the point for us to review

> Reason that brought it to attention is the retirement bug for the
> current QA lead spb. (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64840)
>
> To resolve the current situation there I gave the advice to just hold
> project lead votings that every project has to do every 12 months.

i think the rules are in place to help keep things moving smoothly.  in other 
words, they are guidelines which are not absolute, especially in an open 
source project such as ours.

in this particular case, i would consider these facts to be self evident (and 
painfully so):
 - the current QA lead has effectively done nothing for the entire run of 
holding the position
 - the current QA lead is pretty inactive in many (most?) Gentoo things
 - the previous QA lead was very active in constantly improving Gentoo life
 - the previous QA lead would like to resume improving Gentoo life

taking these facts into consideration, the logical move would be for the 
current QA lead to step down and allow the previous QA lead to step up.  Mark 
has more than proved his constant drive for quality.  Stephen on the other 
hand has done nothing of the sort.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2480 bytes --]

On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that
> > do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period
> > ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking.
> >
> > I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like
> > $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough
> > bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the
> > moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding maintainer-wanted).
>
> the metric for retirement lies with devrel and whatever sub projects
> they've partitioned/created for these topics.  the larger developer base is
> free to make their opinions known to devrel on the various matters and if
> they feel things are not moving in the right direction, we can review the
> matter.  but i would say this is hardly close to the point for us to review
>
> > Reason that brought it to attention is the retirement bug for the
> > current QA lead spb. (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64840)
> >
> > To resolve the current situation there I gave the advice to just hold
> > project lead votings that every project has to do every 12 months.
>
> i think the rules are in place to help keep things moving smoothly.  in
> other words, they are guidelines which are not absolute, especially in an
> open source project such as ours.
>
> in this particular case, i would consider these facts to be self evident
> (and painfully so):
>  - the current QA lead has effectively done nothing for the entire run of
> holding the position
>  - the current QA lead is pretty inactive in many (most?) Gentoo things
>  - the previous QA lead was very active in constantly improving Gentoo life
>  - the previous QA lead would like to resume improving Gentoo life
>
> taking these facts into consideration, the logical move would be for the
> current QA lead to step down and allow the previous QA lead to step up. 
> Mark has more than proved his constant drive for quality.  Stephen on the
> other hand has done nothing of the sort.

along these lines, if the situation does not resolve itself, i would ask for 
us to vote on the matter come our next council meeting.  i believe without a 
doubt that Mark in anything but the QA lead role would be a huge disservice 
to the entire project.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 12:15 Tue 15 Jan     , Markus Ullmann wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that
> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period 
> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking.
>
> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like 
> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough 
> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the moment 
> (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding maintainer-wanted).

I don't see a good reason to turn away any amount of help, and I don't 
think we should ever forcibly retire developers because of inactivity. 
If we let them stay developers, they might continue contributing a few 
fixes we wouldn't otherwise get, or they may become more active again in 
the future. Developers are valuable people, and a lot of time has gone 
into their training and experience.

Do I think we should reassign their packages after a while, if they need 
love? Sure.

Do I think we should remove them from roles besides "ebuild developer"? 
Sure.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps

[Mike Doty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 12:15 Tue 15 Jan     , Markus Ullmann wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that
>> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period 
>> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking.
>>
>> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like 
>> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough 
>> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the moment 
>> (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding maintainer-wanted).
> 
> I don't see a good reason to turn away any amount of help, and I don't 
> think we should ever forcibly retire developers because of inactivity. 
> If we let them stay developers, they might continue contributing a few 
> fixes we wouldn't otherwise get, or they may become more active again in 
> the future. Developers are valuable people, and a lot of time has gone 
> into their training and experience.
> 
> Do I think we should reassign their packages after a while, if they need 
> love? Sure.
> 
> Do I think we should remove them from roles besides "ebuild developer"? 
> Sure.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
How about calling them inactive.  infra will remove cvs/svn/git access
and when they have time to contribute to a manner that we expect that
access can be restored.

Know that infra is/has been planning to automatically disable
cvs/svn/git access for those who haven't committed in some time period
(2 months is the current idea)


- --
=======================================================
Mike Doty                      kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo Infrastructure
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
GPG: E1A5 1C9C 93FE F430 C1D6  F2AF 806B A2E4 19F4 AE05
=======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBR43jBoBrouQZ9K4FAQL3wwQAqZBya84VYclagLRhhHm00quGQk6lxEMS
VyCbttxdqqof/dGX4BH+5K1n89De62mZpExu+pZk95mCvekkbvzInG7L2fQ2Oy4l
PTiYdb5D/k3z/GaYnYBXHupqwoJP/7bYkhn8WM+q/lysIkUrxOXnhJKdWcOJHxav
x+4arUQ2CWc=
=db2e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps

[Mike Doty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Doty wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 12:15 Tue 15 Jan     , Markus Ullmann wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that
>>> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period 
>>> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking.
>>>
>>> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like 
>>> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough 
>>> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the moment 
>>> (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding maintainer-wanted).
>> I don't see a good reason to turn away any amount of help, and I don't 
>> think we should ever forcibly retire developers because of inactivity. 
>> If we let them stay developers, they might continue contributing a few 
>> fixes we wouldn't otherwise get, or they may become more active again in 
>> the future. Developers are valuable people, and a lot of time has gone 
>> into their training and experience.
> 
>> Do I think we should reassign their packages after a while, if they need 
>> love? Sure.
> 
>> Do I think we should remove them from roles besides "ebuild developer"? 
>> Sure.
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Donnie
> How about calling them inactive.  infra will remove cvs/svn/git access
> and when they have time to contribute to a manner that we expect that
> access can be restored.
> 
> Know that infra is/has been planning to automatically disable
> cvs/svn/git access for those who haven't committed in some time period
> (2 months is the current idea)
> 
> 
s/we expect/some standard/ and the re-enabling can be made very easy, it
really depends on what standards you set for someone to be an "active"
developer.

- --
=======================================================
Mike Doty                      kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo Infrastructure
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
GPG: E1A5 1C9C 93FE F430 C1D6  F2AF 806B A2E4 19F4 AE05
=======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBR43lS4BrouQZ9K4FAQJrdgP+MBxGEkyOVeFNF9HnfWCIx97HCGwxKkYq
4gPBsTYa278J6i0byrtVuaWhdQwKv4tKX481ydwXmyXGGJmWbhaREjnfdomkS3Bf
/NQVc9Q6jsq5syLwqaveQDcC02L2rQxCC8SxK2Tvb4c4P47YE+RbqkisJIHyXgxb
ZnZV6EEadiA=
=xy/t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1745 bytes --]

On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Mike Doty wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 12:15 Tue 15 Jan     , Markus Ullmann wrote:
> >> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that
> >> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period
> >> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking.
> >>
> >> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like
> >> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough
> >> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the
> >> moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding
> >> maintainer-wanted).
> >
> > I don't see a good reason to turn away any amount of help, and I don't
> > think we should ever forcibly retire developers because of inactivity.
> > If we let them stay developers, they might continue contributing a few
> > fixes we wouldn't otherwise get, or they may become more active again in
> > the future. Developers are valuable people, and a lot of time has gone
> > into their training and experience.
> >
> > Do I think we should reassign their packages after a while, if they need
> > love? Sure.
> >
> > Do I think we should remove them from roles besides "ebuild developer"?
> > Sure.
>
> How about calling them inactive.  infra will remove cvs/svn/git access
> and when they have time to contribute to a manner that we expect that
> access can be restored.
>
> Know that infra is/has been planning to automatically disable
> cvs/svn/git access for those who haven't committed in some time period
> (2 months is the current idea)

the timeframe should follow whatever devrel is using (which i think is longer 
than 2 months)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Retirement of slacking peeps

[Ned Ludd]

On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 06:43 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Mike Doty wrote:
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 12:15 Tue 15 Jan     , Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > >> our retirement folks brought up a discussion about retiring people that
> > >> do a small amount of commits (1-2 mostly) right before the 60 day period
> > >> ends so they stay active yet are effectively slacking.
> > >>
> > >> I gave a starting idea to change the minimum amount to something like
> > >> $count of fixed bugs per month for ebuild developers. As we have enough
> > >> bugs that are trivial to fix this shouldn't be a real problem at the
> > >> moment (considering we have ~6.5k bugs open excluding
> > >> maintainer-wanted).
> > >
> > > I don't see a good reason to turn away any amount of help, and I don't
> > > think we should ever forcibly retire developers because of inactivity.
> > > If we let them stay developers, they might continue contributing a few
> > > fixes we wouldn't otherwise get, or they may become more active again in
> > > the future. Developers are valuable people, and a lot of time has gone
> > > into their training and experience.
> > >
> > > Do I think we should reassign their packages after a while, if they need
> > > love? Sure.
> > >
> > > Do I think we should remove them from roles besides "ebuild developer"?
> > > Sure.
> >
> > How about calling them inactive.  infra will remove cvs/svn/git access
> > and when they have time to contribute to a manner that we expect that
> > access can be restored.
> >
> > Know that infra is/has been planning to automatically disable
> > cvs/svn/git access for those who haven't committed in some time period
> > (2 months is the current idea)
> 
> the timeframe should follow whatever devrel is using (which i think is longer 
> than 2 months)


Any automated disconnects of cvs/svn/git would be done in conjunction
with the policy/desires that devrel takes. As is 60 days is what
triggers slacker alerts. That used to be 90 days but I think they
discovered along the way that even ~90 days was to long of a time frame.

Infra's only desire/care in this matter would be that we are not fans of
leaving open security holes. Every dev is considered a security risk.
That risk is perceived maximized by inactivity. More or less.. use it or
lose it.. (note infra is strictly talking about flipping bits in ldap to
disable write access to those repositories) and not fully automated 
retirements.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list