forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] remove active/inactive concept
Date Fri, 21 Apr 2006 06:58:25 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
> I think we also need to consider an alternative and weigh up the pros 
> and cons.

That is the purpose of Proposal threads. The discussion
should enable a solution to become apparent. The Vote
is only really needed to ratify the final proposal.

> We could define active in some measurable terms, for example:
> 
> "No activity in the community for a period of six months. Activity is 
> defined as a mail to any mailing list, Jira activity or a commit."

That definition sounds fine. It includes the case of
someone who occasionally comments on some topic that
they feel is important.

I reckon that the period should be longer than
six months. That wizzes by too quickly these days.

> ----
> 
> In my view, regardless of whether we have active/inactive or not I think 
> we should remove the word from the votes. I agree that the chair can 
> make a judgment call on reaching a quorum or not. Since such votes allow 
> the use of a veto there is no problem with this in my eyes.

Then we would need to change the definition of the
"2/3 majority" and the "Unanimous consensus" to not
force everyone to vote. See a solution in Ferdinand's
reply.

> With respect to whether we define active or not, I prefer to do less 
> admin work, not more. So I am in favour of removing the distinction. We 
> should keep emeritus status. People should be able to opt to be emeritus 
> or the PMC can choose to request that someone become emeritus, such a 
> request can be refused.

They certainly should be able to opt to be emeritus,
like NKB did recently.

However, i don't understand why the PMC might ever
need to request that. Did you have a potential
situation in mind?

> However, if someone wants to periodically verify the active status of 
> people (i.e. once a month) then the "time out" definition is workable. 
> But who is going to do this? (hint - *not* me)

Probably a job for the PMC chair.

-David

Mime
View raw message