On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Tim Guan-tin Chien > <timdr...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> What does module ownership has to do with versions, or MoCo employment >> in any way? >> >> I agree we should tag inactive developers as "(inactive)" but that's it. > > Actually, if someone is no longer contributing, then they are not > appropriate as peers or module owners. > > I.e. the reason someone makes a good peer or owner is that they are > active and contribute to the development and improvement of the > module. That doesn't have to be contributions in the form of code. > Reviews, or responding to questions, or participating in discussions > about the future of the module are all perfectly fine forms of > contributions. > > But if someone is not at least being responsive about questions to the > module, then they are no longer a good candidate for module ownership > or peer. > > That said, I agree that employment is not a requirement. > > / Jonas
Is there a process exist to remove an inactive module owner/peer other than ask them to resign willingly? _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
