IngridvdM wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:02:00 +0200: > Am 23.07.2011 23:47, schrieb Ross Gardler: > >(with my mentors hat) > > > >On 23 July 2011 22:08, IngridvdM<[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > >>people might be ill, people might be on a journey around the > >>world. > > > >Then when they return to their email they can make a case to the > >(P)PMC who can vote according to the normal rules of engagement. There > >is no need to keep the existing invitation open indefinitely and thus > >causing work for people trying to track this. > > > > Reducing the workload is indeed a good reason for a deadline. Thanks > for pointing to this Ross! I somehow had thought it would be exactly > the opposite, that having this deadline would cause more work, but I > now think that I was wrong with that assumption. > So this feels like consensus now. :-) > > Dennis, please accept my apologies that I haven't seen this clearer > before. I hope I am still allowed to suggest to add this rationale > to the reminder mail. An important principle of change acceptance is > to describe the reasons to the people. I really think that this > would be helpful. > > A concrete suggestion: > Replace the sentence "We will then know not wait for it." > with > "We will then no longer need to track your status and will not send > further reminder mails to you." > > Would that make sense? >
Are you intending for their status to be "A standing invitation" or "An expired invitation" (to become a committer)? > [...] > >>Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for 1 > >>months, two months, a year? > > > >It is common practice for Apache projects to periodically clear out > >their committer lists. People who are no longer active on a project > >are, in many projects, routinely moved to emeritus status. It is > >entirely possible that this project will opt to do the same at some > >point in the future (note committers who are moved to emeritus need > >only ask to have their commit privileges returned). > > > Ok, that was quite unexpected to me. But in another thread I have > learned now that this is done because of security reasons. I think > that is a good reason also! > I don't see what security is achieved here.
