On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:20:06 -0500 Loui Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun 05 Dec 2010 11:53 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Shacristo <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kaiting Chen > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > One of the stated purposes of the quorum is to "ensure that TUs > > > remain active in the job that they have taken on." Allowing > > > circumvention of the quorum requirements will obviously undermine > > > that. > > > > TU's have a lot of different responsibilities. Prolonging a decided > > vote by six days to motivate or ensure that someone is active does > > not make sense to me. --Kaiting. > > I would propose shortening the voting period then. I kind of like how > the system is set up (not perfectly though) to remove the inactive TUs > semi-automatically. >
I agree though I'd say 5 days has to be a minimum, everyone has a couple of days when something needs to be finished and where except for getting a few runs at the build server not much of the TU stuff can be done, same goes for some days sick in bed. -- Jabber: [email protected] Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
