On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > I am fine either way. Not sure if there is a big difference between an > inactive committer and an emeritus committer that can reactivate themselves > at any time. I do agree it helps make it more clear who is doing work.
There's not a big difference other than visibility. I think if the community is clear that one can always re-activate themselves they developers are more more likely to be upfront about their current commitments. Up to you guys. Regards, Alan > > -Jay > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Chris Burroughs > <chris.burrou...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> A while ago [1] in the "committer and pmc requirements" thread emeritus >> status came up (Alan's description quoted below). But I don't think >> there was consensus (or at least I could not find followup in the >> archives). Is this something we agree is a good idea? >> >>> Why emeritus? I think that it's important for people who are >> evaluating the community to have an accurate sense of about how active >> the community is in terms of committers and PMC members. With that in >> mind I think that the emeritus status/process should be a pain free, >> non-punative, process where by emeritus members can be instantly >> reactivated at solely their own request, i.e. there is no evaluation or >> vote to reactivate them. >> >> >> [1] >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kafka-dev/201203.mbox/%3CCAOeJiJgzNNGFdKwo4dtWqSHDuZ5Yxn=uqrwjz3ken7bpse_...@mail.gmail.com%3E >>
