incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From IngridvdM <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache Initial Committer Status
Date Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:04:54 GMT
Am 24.07.2011 18:41, schrieb Daniel Shahaf:
> 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<>   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)?
I have had concerns with a deadline as long as there wasn't a satisfying 
reason that could be given to the affected people. Reducing the workload 
in the project is now identified as a good enough reason for that 
deadline in my opinion. So I am ok with withdrawing the invitation after 
a generous time with giving a notice before and with giving this kind 
reason. That really should not upset anyone accidentally.

>> [...]
>>>> Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for
>>>> 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 People who are no longer active on a project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.
Prevent misuse of unattended accounts I believe.
Isn't this the case?

Kind regards,

View raw message