Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <444746A3.7070600@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:30:27 +0100
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Proposal] remove active/inactive concept
References: <20060420081203.GC21454@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20060420081203.GC21454@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Crossley 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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".
> 
> 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.
> 
> After one week to enable people enough time
> to discuss the proposal and rectify any holes,
> i will call a vote.

I think we also need to consider an alternative and weigh up the pros 
and cons.

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."

----

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.

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.

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)

Ross