On 3/16/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Sandy McArthur wrote: > > 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. > > See Danny's email on us being lazy :) > > I can definitely do this - just trying to avoid that much work and spam to > the mail lists as I think I would need to cc pmc@ or general@ on each > email - though I could do one big cc: email each week interval. > > If consensus prefers this, I'll definitely work at finding time to go > ahead and do it.
In my mind it is the right thing to do regardless of general consensus. If you are going to strip someone of their title or responsibilities without previously agreed terms or making an reasonable effort to directly resolve the issue with them, then it's wrong and disrespectful. > > 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. > > Hope I'm not coming across like this. > > My buddies in this case are described as: "People who read Jakarta mailing > lists". Ideally pmc@ and general@, though I can quite happily mail all the > -dev lists if we think there are pmc members not listening to the central > lists. My example included a little exaggeration to make it more obvious. I don't actually equate being a PMC with what I consider a human rights issue. But yes, it does seem like your avoiding the effort required to do the right thing and in the process it comes off a little underhanded. > My agenda is to make things less messy. Am working hard to avoid taking > the direction of introducing small changes to lead the community in a > direction. That'd be the dishonest bit. > > I guess this does have some link to my agenda to enforce the single > Jakarta community meme I generally don't have a problem with administrative goals, I'm mostly indifferent to all of them. I care about the code, the end user's experience, and my user experience. I will say I think ratio of administrivia emails and commit log emails is out of balance. Administrative tasks are important but not so much to justify a bureaucracy and kill productivity. > - but even in the multi-community meme, there'd be > no excuse for pmc members not being on general@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > A pmc member who is not on pmc@ (and doesn't want to subscribe) has > effectively resigned in my view; pretty much the same for [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can agree with that but unless that is made clear when someone is made a PMC. I'm not a PMC so I don't know. If the duties and expectations of a PMC don't include being responsive on a mailing list then changing the rules without their consent isn't right. -- 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]
