incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <...@daniel.shahaf.name>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Date Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:41:05 GMT
IngridvdM wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:02:00 +0200:
> Am 23.07.2011 23:47, schrieb Ross Gardler:
> >(with my mentors hat)
> >
> >On 23 July 2011 22:08, IngridvdM<IngridvdM@gmx-topmail.de>  wrote:
> [...]
> >>people might be ill, people might be on a journey around the
> >>world.
> >
> >Then when they return to their email they can make a case to the
> >(P)PMC who can vote according to the normal rules of engagement. There
> >is no need to keep the existing invitation open indefinitely and thus
> >causing work for people trying to track this.
> >
> 
> Reducing the workload is indeed a good reason for a deadline. Thanks
> for pointing to this Ross! I somehow had thought it would be exactly
> the opposite, that having this deadline would cause more work, but I
> now think that I was wrong with that assumption.
> So this feels like consensus now. :-)
> 
> Dennis, please accept my apologies that I haven't seen this clearer
> before. I hope I am still allowed to suggest to add this rationale
> to the reminder mail. An important principle of change acceptance is
> to describe the reasons to the people. I really think that this
> would be helpful.
> 
> A concrete suggestion:
> Replace the sentence "We will then know not wait for it."
> with
> "We will then no longer need to track your status and will not send
> further reminder mails to you."
> 
> Would that make sense?
> 

Are you intending for their status to be "A standing invitation" or "An
expired invitation" (to become a committer)?

> [...]
> >>Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for 1
> >>months, two months, a year?
> >
> >It is common practice for Apache projects to periodically clear out
> >their committer lists. People who are no longer active on a project
> >are, in many projects, routinely moved to emeritus status. It is
> >entirely possible that this project will opt to do the same at some
> >point in the future (note committers who are moved to emeritus need
> >only ask to have their commit privileges returned).
> >
> Ok, that was quite unexpected to me. But in another thread I have
> learned now that this is done because of security reasons. I think
> that is a good reason also!
> 

I don't see what security is achieved here.

Mime
View raw message