I think there is no mandatory rule for PTL to attend TSC meeting in order to complete the removal process. At least, I never did that before.
On my side, I have tried to contact several inactive committers to ask for their willingness and most of them replies politely to explain why. And we have a happy ending by putting them in retired list[1]. I did encounter the situation that losing contact to some committer. And we just ask TSC to approve the removal and that's it. After all, I never think it is a shame to leave a project, since it is normal that people move on to a new target and didn't have time to say goodbye. [1]: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/qtip/Platform+Performance+Benchmarking#PlatformPerformanceBenchmarking-RetiredCommitters On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:17 PM joehuang <[email protected]> wrote: > In OPNFV we "assume bad faith"? This is not a good assumption. > > The less meeting, the better, and usually a TSC meeting will be in the > night or early morning for me to join. If even need to go to TSC meeting > for 5 minutes for approval, I would prefer to retain the inactive committer > there, just let it be. > > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) > ------------------------------ > *From:* Raymond Paik [[email protected]] > *Sent:* 14 December 2016 13:33 > > *To:* joehuang > *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance > Joe, > > On the first point, I'm not sure why you are saying you need to be > committer to submit a patch in OPNFV. There are plenty of regular > contributors who submit code/patches to OPNFV. Let me know if I'm not > understanding your point. > > On your second point, I can recall a few committers who voluntarily > stepped down in the past few of months. One of them was your Board member > Wenjing who stepped down as a committer for QTIP. One of the reasons why > TSC approval is desired for revoking committer status is to prevent PTLs > from potentially acting in bad faith. I don't know if there are any PTLs > in OPNFV who would act in bad faith, but it's good to have checks & > balances. Is it really that difficult to send an email to the TSC mailing > list and then come to the TSC meeting for 5 minutes to get an approval? > > Others in the community are welcome to weigh in on this... > > Thanks, > > Ray > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM, joehuang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, Raymond, > > My suggestion is to update the TSC Charter. Compared to OpenStack core > reviewer/contributor maintenance, often feel that OPNFV governance brings > lots of inconvenience: > > For example, if one wants to submit a patch, he/she usually has to be a > committer in OPNFV before he submit a patch. But in OpenStack, anyone is > able to submit a patch, and core reviewers will make sure this patch should > be approved or not. If one is nominated as committer to be a core reviewer, > and pass the voting, then any other core reviewer can add the new one to > core reviewer list, but in OPNFV, you have to submit a patch or ask help > from help-desk. > > And another example, I seldom find that there is a stepping down > notification in OPNFV mail-list from committer(yes, I saw some PTL stepping > down notification), it seems not the fashion in OPNFV. But in OpenStack, a > core reviewer is quite important role in code review, if he is not able to > do the core reviewer responsibility, he will send a notification to the > OpenStack mail-list. > > I really don't know the reason why when we find some committer is inactive > in the past 6 months, we need the approve from TSC? > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) > ------------------------------ > *From:* Raymond Paik [[email protected]] > *Sent:* 14 December 2016 12:43 > *To:* joehuang > *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance > > Joe, > > If there's an inactive committer (for more than 6 months) and the PTL is > not able to reach that committer for whatever reason, the PTL needs to make > a request to the TSC to revoke the committer status. The PTL should not do > this unilaterally. > > Please see the 8th paragraph in the Section 8 of the TSC Charter ( > https://www.opnfv.org/developers/technical-project-governance/tsc-charter). > .. > > Thanks, > > Ray > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:18 PM, joehuang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > In each project's wiki page, we often list committers and contributors, as > OPNFV's ongoing development, some new committers come, some committers grow > other interesting and put less focus on the old project. > > I have one suggestion for the maintenance on committer list: for those who > have shifted interest, for example, not shown in the weekly meeting and > mail-list discussion ( all these could be found in the log) in the past 6 > months, but they forget to send a stepping down notification in the > mail-list, PTL should be able to move the committer to the contributor list > by default, and update the list in the git repository too. > > It's not good idea ( not polite too :-) ) to send mail to ask "hey, would > you continue to contribute in the project, if not, I'll remove you from the > committer list". > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss >
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
