forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ferdinand Soethe <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] remove active/inactive concept
Date Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:42:49 GMT
> 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.

> 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?

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 someone wants to personally know who is an
> "active" committer, then they can search the mail
> archives.


> 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.


> 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.

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

> 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?


View raw message