forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] remove active/inactive concept
Date Fri, 21 Apr 2006 06:31:45 GMT
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> > There seems to be confusion caused by the concept
> > of "active" versus "inactive" committers and PMC
> > members. It is too difficult to classify people
> > in such a way and causes unnecessary angst.
> > I propose that we remove such distinction.
> I support your proposing this.
> Let's discuss it and be done with it.

Yes, the main thing is to make a decision
and then document it and stop revisiting
this topic.

> > The who.html page would have two lists, sorted
> > alphabetically:
> > * Simple list of all committers, past and present.
> > * Simple list of the current PMC members.
> 1. Why would this be two separate lists?
>    Did I miss something or aren't we still always both?
>    If so, why not express this in a unified list?

Yes, still always both. Except for the old committers
who were not here when Forrest moved to become a
top-level ASF project and so gain a PMC.

Why two lists? Well i was trying to get away
from the need to add the bold-type etc.

However, you are correct. Lets keep it as one
list to minimise any impression that there are
separate groups.

> 2. I really liked the concept of committers being able to
>    mark themselves as inactive as THEY see fit.
>    I would add (or actually stress) their right to also
>    mark themselves as active again as THEY see fit.

If the concept remains then that is how it should
operate. However, it doesn't. People go away and
don't edit that file. Then one of us needs to make
a judgement.

My main point of this proposal is to ask
why we need to do this classification at all?

> > If someone wants to personally know who is an
> > "active" committer, then they can search the mail
> > archives.
> +1
> > If someone wants to personally know the changes on
> > the PMC, then they can look at the past Board
> > reports or see the svn log for the who.xml page.
> +1
> > For the Guidelines page, the "Unanimous Consensus"
> > type of approval would be removed and the relevant
> > actions would become "Consensus Approval".
> I don't understand the need for that.
> We have never had any problems with that.

Two reasons: Because it is dependent on the
term "Active" and because it is another thing
that is impossible to achieve.

However, with your idea below to change its
definition to not force everyone to vote,
this category could remain.

> > The term "Active PMC members" seems to cause
> > confusion about who has a binding vote. It was
> > intended to just clarify the Unanimous and
> > 2/3 Majority situations, so that we didn't need
> > to chase people and force them to vote. The word
> > "Active" would now be removed.
> > So for the 2/3 Majority situation, the chair can
> > decide on a case-by-case basis if a quorum has
> > been reached.
> Why not simply talk about 2/3 of the votes (those who choose to vote)
> within a reasonable time frame?

Hey, good idea. I reckon that would remove the
ambiguity about who has binding votes.

> Wasn't that what the term active was meant
> to say in the first place: Active in terms of coming forward to cast a
> vote?

I like your interpretation.

> > After one week to enable people enough time
> > to discuss the proposal and rectify any holes,
> > i will call a vote.
> Yeah, let's get over with. But perhaps we should extend the voting
> period on this so that people like Johannnes (who is on holiday) get a
> better chance of having their say?

Can anyone remember when he said that he
would be back?


View raw message