On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 20:18, Tim Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/12/10, Bernd Fondermann <[email protected]> wrote: >> Fellow researchers, >> >> I propose we take a look at inactive labs and mark those as 'idle' with >> no activity for more than, let's say, a year. >> >> Later, we could move them to 'terminated' status. >> >> WDYT, > > Why not just poll the PI after a period (?1yr) of inactivity and ask > them if the status still reflects their intent or needs updating? My > guess is that most would respond with "oh yeah, I'll update it to > idle".
Good idea. We should definitively do that in future. However, not for the current set of Labs. Right now, I'd prefer to just do this as a single transaction instead of forking a thread for every lab, which need to be tracked and we'd eventually have to do it by ourself anyway. Unless of course, somebody volunteers to manage this process. > For example, this discussion seems to have prompted the > desired behavior. I reckon their's no harm either way though... +1 Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
