From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OTkvA-0000XF-UR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:12:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BC2DE0B1D; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF17E0B1D for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (f052103085.adsl.alicedsl.de [78.52.103.85]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0D891B4001 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4C2A8BFF.5040400@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:12:47 +0200 From: Sebastian Pipping User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100419 Thunderbird/3.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo References: <4C184B06.8040806@gentoo.org> <4C18FFE4.4080908@gentoo.org> <4C1909D4.7010703@gentoo.org> <4C1975F7.5010903@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4C1975F7.5010903@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4a01b2f0-a29f-4b05-917a-10f5610951d8 X-Archives-Hash: d4c6411209f2de35b69e8b2f54feb872 Jorge, On 06/17/10 03:10, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > So everyone can have an idea, I'd suggest looking at the list of the > open retirement bugs[1]. > As there seems to be some confusion about the policies to retire > developers, please read the undertakers page[2]. Interesting links, thanks. Two things come to my mind: Step 2 of the undertakers page reads: "When sending an email to the developer in question, make sure you tell him, that he might get retired due to being inactive." If I'm not mistaken this is telling the developer about potential retirement on first direct contact. If that's true I don't consider it very sensitive. After all our goal is to keep that developer in, not out. So my proposal is: please add another two weeks and a second mail so the first one does not mention retirement. How about that? The other thing is: what are the reasons to retire inactive developers? Are these reasons documented somewhere? Thanks! Sebastian