Ross Gardler wrote: > > I think we also need to consider an alternative and weigh up the pros > and cons.
That is the purpose of Proposal threads. The discussion should enable a solution to become apparent. The Vote is only really needed to ratify the final proposal. > We could define active in some measurable terms, for example: > > "No activity in the community for a period of six months. Activity is > defined as a mail to any mailing list, Jira activity or a commit." That definition sounds fine. It includes the case of someone who occasionally comments on some topic that they feel is important. I reckon that the period should be longer than six months. That wizzes by too quickly these days. > ---- > > In my view, regardless of whether we have active/inactive or not I think > we should remove the word from the votes. I agree that the chair can > make a judgment call on reaching a quorum or not. Since such votes allow > the use of a veto there is no problem with this in my eyes. Then we would need to change the definition of the "2/3 majority" and the "Unanimous consensus" to not force everyone to vote. See a solution in Ferdinand's reply. > With respect to whether we define active or not, I prefer to do less > admin work, not more. So I am in favour of removing the distinction. We > should keep emeritus status. People should be able to opt to be emeritus > or the PMC can choose to request that someone become emeritus, such a > request can be refused. They certainly should be able to opt to be emeritus, like NKB did recently. However, i don't understand why the PMC might ever need to request that. Did you have a potential situation in mind? > However, if someone wants to periodically verify the active status of > people (i.e. once a month) then the "time out" definition is workable. > But who is going to do this? (hint - *not* me) Probably a job for the PMC chair. -David
