Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 61669 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2006 09:18:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Apr 2006 09:18:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 12882 invoked by uid 500); 21 Apr 2006 09:18:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 12858 invoked by uid 500); 21 Apr 2006 09:18:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 12847 invoked by uid 99); 21 Apr 2006 09:18:30 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:18:30 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [80.67.18.43] (HELO smtprelay05.ispgateway.de) (80.67.18.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:18:30 -0700 Received: (qmail 4823 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2006 09:18:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dhcp-1-13.aldebaran.de) (305514@[212.202.166.77]) (envelope-sender ) by smtprelay05.ispgateway.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 21 Apr 2006 09:18:08 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:17:54 +0200 From: Ferdinand Soethe X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <946563765.20060421111754@soethe.net> To: dev@forrest.apache.org Subject: Re: [Proposal] remove active/inactive concept In-Reply-To: <44489997.1090509@apache.org> References: <20060420081203.GC21454@igg.indexgeo.com.au> <444746A3.7070600@apache.org> <20060421065825.GC7531@igg.indexgeo.com.au> <44489997.1090509@apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ross Gardler wrote: >>>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. I'd probably aim for a different approach. Instead of checking for activity (which is always hard to gauge) have committers tell us if they are absent for a holiday. That way we can assume that everybody who has not told doesn't care while we can also extend voting periods on important decisions to accommodate holidays. -- Ferdinand Soethe