* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 11:00]:
> So, given that you don't think "maintainers who neglect their duties
> and don't follow documented procedures" should "be treated the same
> as maintainers who leave the project properly", how do you propose
> to treat them?
[...]
> ...but you do want to make sure they're not retired "with full honors",
> right?
Oh, they are retired with full honours. Once we get around to
creating a web site listing and thanking emeritus developers, I won't
propose splitting it into "good people" who left the project properly
and "bad people" who didn't. I honour everyone for their
contribution, and I have no idea where you get the idea from that this
is not the case.
I have only talked about the re-admission of people to the project.
When someone wants to join again, you obviously look at what kind of
work they did in the past. If they retired, it is more likely that
they can judge their workload, whether they have enough time, etc than
if they did not retire. This should be taken into account during
re-admission. I said, in a nutshell, that generally people who've
retired can simply get added again, and that others have to do more
checks. Again, this is in a nutshell; it of course depends on the
individual circumstances.
I don't see how this position is so different from the one you
described later, when you said "On the gripping hand, I believe any
procedure permitting an emeritus developer back into the project
should evaluate the circumstances surrounding their departure. [...]
We can make those questions a little more pointed and rigorous for the
idlers, if need be." Obviously you suggest treating them differently,
too?
> action ("We should thank them for their efforts, put them on the
> emeritus keyring, and find new maintainers for their packages.") do you
I do that and I never said otherwise.
> By the way, I didn't imply you'd threaten people with being barred from
> re-admission. What I said was:
[...]
And before that paragraph, you said "I don't think you're going to
persuade more people to avoid silently "idling out" by threatening
some sort of denigrated status."
> > (Anyway, I perform this work with my QA hat and not with my DPL
> > hat, so it's not really relevant to the discussion;
>
> Eh? It is if you ask the DAMs to retire the developer without any
> request on his or her part. Have you ever done so?
As DPL, no. As QA person, I helped the DAM evaluate his listing of
inactive people before he performed the MIA ping.
I have a question to you. Do you think the MIA ping the DAM performed
was a good or bad idea? (i.e. looking for inactive people, asking
them if they are still active and if not retiring their accounts in
order to minimize stale accounts and maximize security).
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
