Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> writes: > Therefore I would now like to actually do it.
Thanks for working on this, it is important! Maybe I am getting old, but one year seems like a fairly short period of time. The list would be shortened with the following names if we used two years: Daiki Ueno Dmitry V. Levin Eric Blake Siddhesh Poyarekar So not radically different actually. It would be bad if this excercise lead to less contributions. How about using the one-year time frame, but give the person 6 months of time after an email notifying them about this situation to make another contribution and thus stay as committer? > So, the list of people (to notify per mail and to remove from the > membership list on savannah) are the following: It would be nice to explain the reason for doing this, so nobody takes offence. If I lost write permission to a project without a clear justification that clearly doing so was for the benefit of the project, I could feel that it was personal and feel offended. It could be brief, just a paragraph or two. It could be part of the GNU maintainers manual, to recommend once every year prune the list of people who have write access to a project if they didn't use it. Maybe an email would be a way to get people back into contributing? Having clear policies helps everyone and usually reduces friction. How about this: Hi. We have seen that you haven't used your write access to the gnulib project within one year, and we miss you! To improve robustness against supply-chain attacks, and thus increase our trustworthyness, we believe write permissions should be restricted to those that use it regulary. This is more of a request that you come back than a good bye! If the write permission has not been used by you within 6 months, we will remove it -- but as a previous contributor, re-establishing write permissions should be a smooth process whenever you are ready to contribute again! /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature