Ross Gardler escribió:
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
...
With respect to whether we define active or not, I prefer to do less
admin work, not more. So I am in favour of removing the distinction.
We should keep emeritus status. People should be able to opt to be
emeritus or the PMC can choose to request that someone become
emeritus, such a request can be refused.
They certainly should be able to opt to be emeritus,
like NKB did recently.
However, i don't understand why the PMC might ever
need to request that. Did you have a potential
situation in mind?
Not a specific situation, and thinking about it any potential
situation I can invent is already covered by the provision that
enables PMC members to remove a PMC member. Interestingly, I have
never seen happen in an Apache project, however, we do need this
security.
The described security is at least at the members level. See Section 4.4
and 4.7 [1].
However, if someone wants to periodically verify the active status
of people (i.e. once a month) then the "time out" definition is
workable. But who is going to do this? (hint - *not* me)
Probably a job for the PMC chair.
Few years ago in cocoon there were this rules:
Move an active committer to inactive status, if the committer was
inactive for more than 3 months.
Move an inactive committer to emeritus status if the committer was
inactive for more than 9 months.
The problem generated by this rules was that often people got angry when
somebody asked him about his inactivity in order to apply the rule. And
I guess for this reason the above rules where removed.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
