On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 17:34 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote: > For me the clear demands in the proposal are to prevent a situation > where projects restart without a good change on success, which is IMO > quite relevant for TDF's good name.
I tend to agree. I don't think making it trivial to deattic something by applying a set of superficial commits to a very large code base which don't achieve meaningful change while f.e. unaddressed security issues mount up, creating a sort of zombie would be a good idea. wrt the proposals exact number of devs and commits, I could imagine that on getting atticed a project is categorized into small, medium, large with 1, 3, 6 devs required to de-attic if there is genuine concern about the proposed bar being too high vs a new from scratch project. -- Caolán McNamara, Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
