> - Double the number of developers with aggressive recruiting
Why do people think that this is a good idea? I have a different one.
How about we *half* the number of developers, keeping the people who do
the most work, and let everyone else contribute as members of the
community? Having developers on projects/teams/herds/whatever that do
only a few commits a year doesn't do anything but artificially inflate
our numbers.
Even if someone only does a little bit of work (maintaining a package
or two and only doing one or two commits per month), it is better than
none. Does having active accounts for these people produce very much
extra work for infra or anyone else? I only see it as a benefit to
users (things get done faster) and developers (one less bug to fix).
The only problem I have with low activity developers is when they
don't commit fixes for bugs that are assigned to them in a timely
manner.
> - Devs can only belong to 5 projects at most
This is a really bad idea. Some developers simply work
harder/faster/more than others. Setting up some artificial limitation
on how many projects one can belong to won't help. Perhaps a better
solution here is that all developers must belong to at least one
project? Coupled with this would be that there would be certain
expectations within the project for work completed. Developers who do
not meet the "quota" are removed from the project. Get removed from all
your projects and get retired. Simple as that.
I really like your idea.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
