On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Indeed, given that there are usually quite a few "inactive" committers
> for a specific (sub-)project. It might be necessary to keep records of
> committers currently eligible for 2/3 majorities....
Hmm - that would be rather hard, and perhaps have too many 'grays'. I
would suggest that you make this harder by for example
-> auto expire committers which have not committed for 24
months -and- have not posted to any ASF mailing list or
WiKi for 12 months.
-> auto expire committers which did not vote on certain well
defined issues for 6 months.
Or some other 'objective' principle. As this makes it easier to have a
very well and objective defined 'roster' of people.
Note that in the above _example_ I made the commit period much longer than
the vote period. The reason for this is to keep valuable 'knowledge' of
experienced committers, which are dormant at some point, in the pool.
But those are just examples - there may be betther methods for this
community.
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
