+0 I agree that it would be a good practice to clean up, but in the end it is not a big deal to have people listed
Thanks for raising the discussion, having these conversations about the community itself is always a great opportunity for the project to grow and become stronger Some comments inline below Il giorno gio 24 ott 2024 alle ore 07:51 Romain Manni-Bucau < rmannibu...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > +-0 but maybe start to setup a routine which will generate a "team2.html" > page with a column "latest contribution" (mail or commit or review?) and > from there see how it looks like and then spawn again the emeritus topic? > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > < > https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064 > > > > > Le jeu. 24 oct. 2024 à 00:05, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 6:17 PM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > I would like to propose a project policy change (followed by > > > implementation) regarding "emeritus" status of PMCs and members. > > > > > > Proposal: > > > 1) IF a PMC member is inactive for 24 months (did NOT participate in > > > any VOTE [by casting binding vote] OR did not create any commit that > > > ended up in the project), he should be automatically moved to > > > "emeritus PMC" status. > > > 2) IF a committer is inactive for 24 months (did NOT participate in > > > any VOTE [by casting vote] OR did not create and/or review any commit > > > that ended up in the project), he should be automatically moved to > > > "emeritus committer" status. > > > > > > Reasoning: > > > Currently if interested party checks ASF report about Maven project on > > > https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?maven , the presented data > > > is skewed, if not even false, about "who" (and more importantly "how > > > many") user is working on a project. This can lead to some unpleasant > > > misunderstandings as well (from "why is my PR not reviewed yet" to > > > many others). Maybe this is not a big deal ? We must help the contributors to learn how to interact with the community and especially the mailing list to start a discussion about their patch. This is the right way for them to be more involved in the community, and finally become committers (== "responsible for" for community and the project) > Moreover, this same (wrong) number may in fact lessen > > > potential contributors, make them turn away and choose another, less > > > supported project to join. Finally, I think we should shrink the > > > circle of "admin" powered users to those we are almost certain are > > > around us and involved. I don't think that this is a real problem. For these reasons: - releases must be approved by a quorum of PMC members, there is no way that someone releases something to the public without the consensus of the community - we receive notifications for each PR and commit: if someone does any harm...we will know, and you can always "git revert" or "git push --force" > Project already has "emeritus" roles for both, > As said, I am +0 to this. I have seen in the past in other places that people explicitly ask to move to Emeritus by themself My two cents Enrico > > > PMCs and committers AFAIK (correct me if I am wrong). > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > Thanks > > > T > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Arnaud Héritier > > Twitter/GitHub/... : aheritier > > >
