Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 87222 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2008 04:31:22 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Feb 2008 04:31:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 8406 invoked by uid 500); 11 Feb 2008 04:31:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 8276 invoked by uid 500); 11 Feb 2008 04:31:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 8264 invoked by uid 99); 11 Feb 2008 04:31:14 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:31:14 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [85.25.139.175] (HELO srv03.codedragons.com) (85.25.139.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:30:29 +0000 Received: from [202.146.77.122] (helo=f3.local) by srv03.codedragons.com with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JOQP5-00076X-Rk for general@incubator.apache.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:36:28 +0100 From: Niclas Hedhman To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re-election of podling committers before graduation Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:30:24 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <47A61A52.90900@apache.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802111230.24088.niclas@hedhman.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Monday 04 February 2008 04:11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but > equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned > inactive committers from the graudation list. Personally, I don't see a difference between inactive committers in a podling than for a TLP. Should existing projects "prune" their committer lists on an annual basis? I think there is no need. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org