El vie, 21-04-2006 a las 11:17 +0200, Ferdinand Soethe escribió: > Ross Gardler wrote: > > >>>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. > > I'd probably aim for a different approach. > > Instead of checking for activity (which is always hard to gauge) have > committers tell us if they are absent for a holiday. That way we can > assume that everybody who has not told doesn't care while we can also > extend voting periods on important decisions to accommodate holidays.
I am not sure. If we do so then we should extend this to general absence or time constraints. salu2 -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
