2010/12/2 Ray Rashif <[email protected]> > On 3 December 2010 06:47, Lukas Fleischer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:06:25AM +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > >> Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year. > >> > >> Conform bylaws a motion should be sent and two active TUs and a > >> voting procedure should follow after 7 days of discussion. > >> > >> Here are my reasons: > >> > >> 1) i noticed in January he doesn't have an account on our devel > >> panel, i asked him to send all the infos to get one and he replied > >> that he doesn't need one because none of his packages are suitable > >> for community. Replying to his email i encourage to get one and > >> adopt some packages from community. At that time we have ~700 > >> orphans and i haven't got any replies from him. > >> > >> 2) no commits in community since the addition. > >> > >> 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this proposal > >> doesn't have sense. Quoting: > >> > >> "There is one special case for removal, removal due to unwarranted > >> and undeclared inactivity, for which standard voting procedure > >> deviates from the above." > >> > >> I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them. > > > > This is kinda sad to hear, but given the complete (and undeclared) > > inactivity, I'd agree. > > Yeah. At first I thought it was a normal inactivity issue. But then > Ionut made me aware that he doesn't even have an account. That was > awkward. > > Anyway, he doesn't appear to have the time. So I say it's best he's > removed for now. He can apply again after 3 months if by that time he > wants to start contributing. >
It make sense to start a removal procedure: no activities, no votes.
