Ross Gardler escribió:
> David Crossley wrote:
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> 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?
>
> Not a specific situation, and thinking about it any potential 
> situation I can invent is already covered by the provision that 
> enables PMC members to remove a PMC member. Interestingly, I have 
> never seen happen in an Apache project, however, we do need this 
> security.
The described security is at least at the members level. See Section 4.4 
and 4.7 [1].

>
>>> 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.
Few years ago in cocoon there were this rules:

Move an active committer to inactive status, if the committer was 
inactive for more than 3 months.
Move an inactive committer to emeritus status if the committer was 
inactive for more than 9 months.

The problem generated by this rules was that often people got angry when 
somebody asked him about his inactivity in order to apply the rule. And 
I guess for this reason the above rules where removed.

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo