On 3/16/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Previously I'd suggested that we should be cleaning up inactive committers > and inactive PMC members - because I'm a bit of a tidy-addict sometimes > and I enjoy deleting :) > > A thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] convinced me that this was half wrong though > - we shouldn't be worrying about cleaning up the large list of inactive > committers, they might come back and that would be great. > > However I do still think we should be cleaning up the inactive PMC > members. The PMC represents the active committers entrusted with oversight > - so to have inactive committers on there is a detriment to its ability to > get the job done. > > My proposal is that we create a file in SVN in which PMC members can list > themselves as being active. After 1 month, failure to appear in that list > will result in removal from the PMC. If it goes well we could consider > doing it periodically, or just when it feels like the numbers are getting > out of sync again. > > Thoughts?
Yea, why over complicate this? Simply email the inactive PMC's known email addresses explaining they have been inactive for an extended period of time and whether or not they have a problem being "de-PMC-ified". Try to contact them three times at two week intervals and keep track of this either in svn or a bugzilla issue. After two months of no response let other PMCs vote on the issue. Introducing a new tasks that only your buddies will likely know about in order to maintain membership feels a bit like when the south (in the USA years ago) introduced literacy tests to keep blacks from voting. It's fine that you have an agenda, but be straight forward and honest about it. And don't make people jump through hoops so their possibly conflicting positions are still binding. -- Sandy McArthur "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
