On 21 December 2012 06:09, Duncan <[email protected]> wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:33:55 -0500 as excerpted: > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Doug Goldstein <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I could MAYBE understand it if they're consuming some valuable resource >>> that we need to free up by retiring them. But instead they get a >>> nasty-gram about their impending retirement and decide if that's how >>> they are to be treated that they can be retired. >> >> Could anybody post the text of one of these "nasty grams?" >> >> I can understand the sense in just checking in to make sure a developer >> still is interested in Gentoo and wants to retain cvs access. However, >> I think the bar for keeping access should be kept low - they shouldn't >> be forced to go find some trivial change to make just to get their name >> in the logs. >> >> Sure, sometimes real life gets busy, but if a dev still runs Gentoo and >> has interest they're fairly likely to return when life settles down. > > Obviously I can't post the text of one of these "nasty grams", but I was > around when the idea was first discussed and then implemented, by > undertakers and infra, with the blessing of either council or whatever it > was that came before (I was young in gentoo back then and didn't have a > clear understanding of how it all worked, but when I started, drobbins > was still around, but in the process of setting up the foundation and etc > so he could leave gentoo in good shape when he did retire, and IIRC/ > AFAIK, he had turned things over to some sort of interrim executive > committee... and I don't recall whether the events here predated what we > call council today, or not). >
Sorry, this e-mail is huge for a topic like this. Please consider breaking your thoughts into logical chunks. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
