bug 24485 - kloeri did not discuss retirement prior with me; he hasn't been able to point me to any definition of inactivity or policy of retirement; he did not in any way listen to me and stuck with his opinion no matter what. I find this behaviour unacceptable, retiring people randomly with no guidelines what constitutes inactivity is not acceptable as it allows people to be retired for political reasons (there's no policy, so just retire whoever annoys you and there's nothing that person(s) can do about it)
Invalid as explained lots of times. You *were* completely inactive for more than two months and your sudden fear of losing your @g.o mail adress and starting to file some bugs doesn't change that fact. Show that you're going to be active on a constant basis and you can come back as a dev again.
Hang on. In bug 24485 you were accusing him of retiring people *not* randomly, but based upon personal grudges. What gives?
(In reply to comment #0) > kloeri did not discuss retirement prior with me; That's a fairly long-standing policy. About two years ago or so I was asked by klieber to write a script that would identify devs who hadn't made a CVS commit within the last sixty days. The process is not quite automatic based on the results of that script (since it doesn't do a very good job with non-CVS devs), but it's pretty close (from my understanding). I don't know how recruiters handles non-CVS devs, but it would be easy enough to check a dev's projects using "grep --recursive username gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en | grep '<dev'" and verifying activity, or lack thereof, with the leads of those projects. In this particular case: > grep --recursive patrick . | grep '<dev' ./userrel/summerofcode/index.xml:<dev role="Member">patrick</dev> ./devrel/user-relations/summerofcode/index.xml:<dev role="Member">patrick</dev> ./devrel/user-relations/index.xml:<dev role="Member" description="GWN liaison">patrick</dev> In any event, long ago Kurt made a rather forceful argument that retirements should be as automatic as possible, based on inactivity, precisely because it is a reasonably objective measure, and it mostly eliminates devs being active only when told that they're about to be booted for inactivity. > he hasn't been able to point me to any definition of inactivity or policy of > retirement; from http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml: "...after 60 days [of inactivity] the developer will be considered retired" As far as I know, that's been the policy for some years now. It's only been during the last year, though, that it's actually been enforced, and from the bugs I've seen I'm guessing that somewhere on the order of a hundred devs have been retired since then. > he did not in any way listen to me and stuck with his opinion no matter what. > > I find this behaviour unacceptable, retiring people randomly with no > guidelines what constitutes inactivity is not acceptable as it allows people > to be retired for political reasons (there's no policy, so just retire > whoever annoys you and there's nothing that person(s) can do about it) That's not really true. The retired dev can always find a willing mentor and go through the new-dev process, although some evidence for future activity would be required. If the retired dev believes that the retirement was malicious, then the devrel policy doc lists additional avenues for redress.
Uhm. Kloeri: How can you just close a bug that concerns you? That is a massive conflict of interest. Let the same rules apply to everyone - I can't close my own devrel bugs, you should not be allowed to do some handwaving and ignore it.
Retiring you was by far not randomly. Some facts about Patrick: * Was recruited as an ebuild developer with aim "Cygwin Port". * Got tree access 20060411, the same day as me. * Never committed anything to gentoo-x86. * Lost his gentoo-x86 access several (>6) months ago. * Never committed anything to /var/{cvs,svn}root/* on lark. * Never contributed changes/overlays anything for the "Cygwin Port". * Was member of these projects: GWN, userrel, adopt-a-dev. * Never did anything for adopt-a-dev but discussion on the ML (according to tcort). * Joined userrel under false pretense (according to christel) * Was removed from GWN due to inactivity. That you have the balls to allege Bryan to "randomly retire you" is really not surprising. FYI: This last of your steps was the very reason i actually respond here. Patrick: You're good at doing nothing and talking much about the former. You had 2.5 years and you did _NOTHING_ that was worth making you a developer. Your recent claims are an insult, not only to Bryan but also to all the other (hard working) Gentoo developers. Resolved as WTF-INVALID.
CLOSED.
(In reply to comment #5) > Retiring you was by far not randomly. Some facts about Patrick: > * Was member of these projects: GWN, userrel, adopt-a-dev. I tried to join QA a few times, but that failed quite nicely (mostly because of lack of a QA lead at those times) I offered to help Infra and was ignored each time So I just offer ressources to other devs, motivate devs-to-be and spend some time on IRC helping people fix their problems. > * Never did anything for adopt-a-dev but discussion on the ML (according to > tcort). Never had time to do it, quite happy that tcort took it over. > * Joined userrel under false pretense (according to christel) Debatable, but I agree that I became quite inactive there. > * Was removed from GWN due to inactivity. Wolf31o2 took over. I didn't want to turn it into a bitchfest, so I stayed away until I felt that I could work with Chris. This was not my decision, and the sorry state of the GWN makes me regret this. > That you have the balls to allege Bryan to "randomly retire you" is really > not surprising. What about people that are really inactive for ~3 months, then commit crap, then disappear again? Or other people that have been MIA for >120 days? Those don't get retired ... > Patrick: You're good at doing nothing and talking much about the former. > You had 2.5 years and you did _NOTHING_ that was worth making you a developer. *shrug* if you have to say that ... I try to help where I can. Finishing my university studies has eaten away at my time budget, so yes, I've not done as much as others. > Your recent claims are an insult, not only to Bryan but also to all the > other (hard working) Gentoo developers. I disagree there. > Resolved as WTF-INVALID. Oh dear. Now I'm scared. Anyway, this discussion should have been on #24485
So, having responded to Danny's pointless rant there's still a big policy problem here: - there's no definition of inactivity - kloeri randomly decides which persons to retire (as in, without an obvious strategy) - these people have no way to appeal, dispute or delay the decision That's quite absurd, it focusses a huge amount of power with no oversight into the hands of one person. Combined with the biggest WTF here, a devrel person just closing a devrel bug about himself (thus killing any chance of devrel being usable as a dispute solving area) makes me think we have a serious problem. This allows for some evil tricks, like retiring people for political reasons - just define them as inactive (I say so) and retire them (because they are inactive), then send all complaints to /dev/null - mmmh tasty. I'd prefer a discussion about this problem instead of ad hominem attacks, those can go to #22485.
You've already been told how to appeal: start doing something that would require developer access and follow the usual new dev procedures. Now a devrel person not addressed thus far has closed the bug, please do not continue abusing Bugzilla. Thanks
Closed
