commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Revised dormancy policy
Date Mon, 16 May 2011 23:07:58 GMT
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Paul Libbrecht <> wrote:

> So we should relaunch a vote?
> (or... I should vote a no and relaunch?)
> paul
> Le 16 mai 2011 à 23:44, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> >>>   d) svn remains open (but no commits without revival vote)
> >> It seems slightly too harsh to me.
> >> Since jelly is among the heaviest targeted ones here, I think the whole
> dormancy aspect would fit but preventing commits sounds like the best way to
> "cap off any attempt of revival".
> >> Couldn't we say
> >>
> > Good point.  I would be OK with that change.
> >
> > Phil
> >>>   d) svn remains open (but no release without revival vote)

Dormant status feels like a death sentence of sorts or at least another
barrier to entry.

If a committer wants to fiddle with POMs for example across all of commons,
he or she should be able to do so. Even a casual change like fixing typos
would not be allowed.

I wonder if the opposite would not be more interesting: showing which
projects are Active.

The whole dormant/active deliberation could be remedied with a page ranking
project activity by commit + ML activity + last release date for example.

The audience can decide what is active based on this table: Project Name,
Commits Last Week/Month/Year | ML msg count week/month/year | Last Release
and Date

You get the idea...


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Thank you,

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message