Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] The mis-concept of "slacking" in Gentoo

["Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org>]

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

Sebastian,

On 02-07-2010 13:51, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Jorge,
> 
> 
> On 06/30/10 05:05, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> The following is a list with a few reasons to retire inactive developers:
>>
>>  * security considerations regarding access to Gentoo infra, including
>> tampering of the tree
>>  * need to ensure that maintainers are accessible, take care of
>> packages and bugs and that they reply on due time to community
>> contacts and requests
>>  * desire to have project and team membership, as well as package
>> maintenance reflect reality
>>  * make it clear what areas of the project are understaffed and what
>> packages require new maintainers
>>  * need to ensure that developers keep up to date regarding policies
>> and use of the tree by using it
> 
> interesting, thanks for elaborating.
> 
> I wonder if we could start making a stronger distinction between these
> two cases of retirement.  If it isn't a throw-out I would prefer to have
> that made so very clear that no one ever feels thrown out that way.
> Especially that there's no guarantee to be allowed to return feels a bit
> odd to me.

please read the undertakers page and the resolution of the retirement
bugs carefully as you seem to be confused about our policy to retired
developers. The only case where re-admittance is subject to particular
scrutiny is when a developer is retired for disciplinary reasons. As you
can read in the second email template[1], we specifically inform the
developer that:

"If we do retire you, it's pretty easy to come back when you are ready.
Just do the ebuild/end-quiz again and you're back on. You also always
have the option of contributing as your schedule allows via proxy or
bugzilla."

We also make sure to mention in the retirement bugs that a developer can
always return as seen on an example bug[2]. My apologies to Caleb to
link directly to his bug, but I needed one concrete reply to show
undertakers work.


[1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/undertakers/retirement-second.txt
[2] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317071#c1

> Best,
> 
> 
> Sebastian
> 

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=E13T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----