On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 09:21 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: > Regardless, as long as devs actually follow policy I don't see any need > to boot them. Maybe very long periods of inactivity should result in > having accounts locked as a security measure (so that we don't end up > with hundreds of ssh keys with commit access floating around who knows > where). Booting out lots of devs just takes a limited set of resources > and limits them further. If anything we want to find a way to let more > people contribute in a significant way - not less...
I think many people seem to forget that it isn't the number of developers or the number of commits. It is all about the amount of actual work that gets done. We need more work being done. Period. It doesn't matter how that gets accomplished, but it is what we need. Removing less active developers would be perfectly fine once we had a good proxy maintainer program in place that would allow people to contribute easily without having to have commit access. A developer who only commits rarely isn't any more valuable to Gentoo than a "regular user" who contributes at the same pace. The only difference is the commit access and the Gentoo resources used by the individual. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
