Neil,
Hmm. I'm still not convinced we need to be
setting arbitrary limits on the number of people
who respond. It all strikes me as a bit over the
top. There may be people who are purely involved
because the love programming parsers. If they
are happy to just let others make a decision about
(for example) what new projects are created, then
so be it. If we need to get more people voting,
then lets sell it, not ram it down peoples
throats.
I also think we are tying active status in with
voting. So I think the process below sounds
great, but it doesn't need to be tied into any
particular vote. Maybe it should just be done
every 6 months. I reckon it could also be fairly
easily automated using some perl scripts and a
request to all users to list all e-mail addresses
that they use in mailing lists. (Or the report
being sent to a PMC rep who can work out that
people have been e-mailing under a new address
and tweak the system.)
So I'm not arguing against active status being
tied to activity, particularly if you can
re-enable. Just about "majority" voting.
However, back to voting and on the assumption
we tied voting into getting majority (i.e. that
there is a general feeling that it is a
requirement that to be part of Apache you must
vote).
Might have to be careful around people who operate
in multiple sub-projects. So we might have to
find a way of ensuring that people who have voted
in one sub-project are not penalised because
they don't vote in another.
(Maybe instead of +1 a "+1 already counted" :>).
Cheers,
Berin
>
> From: "Neil Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Committer Voting [Was: Revisions to xml.apache.org charter]
> Date: 19/03/2003 1:24:45
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi all,
>
> How about an algorithm something like this for de/relisting:
>
> - the subproject's PMC reps should be responsible for keeping a list of
> active committers;
> - a committer should be deemed active so long as he posts to the
> subproject's mailing lists or makes code contributions;
> - When a decision requiring a majority of active committers has to be made,
> the PMC reps will review the active list; if after searching the relevant
> mailing list archives they cannot find a post or code contribution record
> from a particular committer for the last three months, then they need to
> send an e-mail to the committer's Apache ID, cc'ing the subproject's
> development list (also the pmc list?) warning the committer that they are
> about to be considered inactive;
> - no response within 72 hours will result in the committer being
> inactivated.
>
> To my mind this seems fair; we're giving people an explicit chance to tell
> us they're just lurking, while not imposing undue hardships on PMC reps.
> I'm not quite clear on how a committer reactivates themselves though: what
> if a committer who's been inactive for years seems to show up again, says
> they're interested and wants a password reset? On the one hand it would be
> great to encourage people to return to the fold; on the other you can
> imagine that it wouldn't be hard to compromise such a system, if a
> malicious party got hold of a list of inactive committers somehow...
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
> Neil Graham
> XML Parser Development
> IBM Toronto Lab
> Phone: 905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> |---------+---------------------------->
> | | Dirk-Willem van |
> | | Gulik |
> | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
> | | .org> |
> | | |
> | | 03/18/2003 08:47 |
> | | AM |
> | | Please respond to|
> | | general |
> | | |
> |---------+---------------------------->
>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |
> |
> | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |
> | cc:
> |
> | Subject: Re: Committer Voting [Was: Revisions to xml.apache.org charter]
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>
> > > to have high voter turnout....
>
> > Can we possibly engender a high voter turn out without
> > setting arbitrary limits? For example you could have the sub-project
>
> Or 'de-list' folks if they did not vote on any issue in X consequtive
> periods or somethign ?
>
> Dw
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
