Return-Path: 
 <ooo-dev-return-2523-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 40C4A7110
	for <apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:05:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 63479 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jul 2011 18:05:27 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 63335 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jul 2011 18:05:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ooo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <ooo-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 63321 invoked by uid 99); 24 Jul 2011 18:05:27 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:05:27 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of IngridvdM@gmx-topmail.de
 designates 213.165.64.23 as permitted sender)
Received: from [213.165.64.23] (HELO mailout-de.gmx.net) (213.165.64.23)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:05:20 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2011 18:04:59 -0000
Received: from d206122.adsl.hansenet.de (EHLO [192.168.0.103])
 [80.171.206.122]
  by mail.gmx.net (mp043) with SMTP; 24 Jul 2011 20:04:59 +0200
X-Authenticated: #62080303
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18fL44cZkEfS3pEItebs1t2jHlTjYl2IDV1Bvf5Ik
	16P0+tsIURGB9n
Message-ID: <4E2C5EC6.7030507@gmx-topmail.de>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:04:54 +0200
From: IngridvdM <IngridvdM@gmx-topmail.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
 Committer Status
References: <4E2AA459.8010007@gmx-topmail.de>
 <CAOPHaVT_NjHD8J5XmxSEMKVWWm+XH1L1S-OUKUncq_YYW9_4rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E2AC26D.1090701@wtnet.de> <4E2AF6F0.4070201@gmx-topmail.de>
 <2BAAD9A9-8176-42BB-BA28-678128629BCD@comcast.net>
 <4E2B08CD.7040908@gmx-topmail.de> <006401cc496f$a29c94f0$e7d5bed0$@acm.org>
 <4E2B3866.3060406@gmx-topmail.de>
 <CAKQbXgBjWk4HnNVFE-c7f5+eDyL7mHaH8NMLaqr+8qGDs3UxEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E2BD178.4070401@gmx-topmail.de> <20110724164105.GA30335@daniel3.local>
In-Reply-To: <20110724164105.GA30335@daniel3.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0

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<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)?
>
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 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.
>
Prevent misuse of unattended accounts I believe.
Isn't this the case?

Kind regards,
Ingrid