Am 24.07.2011 18:41, schrieb Daniel Shahaf:
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)?
I have had concerns with a deadline as long as there wasn't a satisfying
reason that could be given to the affected people. Reducing the workload
in the project is now identified as a good enough reason for that
deadline in my opinion. So I am ok with withdrawing the invitation after
a generous time with giving a notice before and with giving this kind
reason. That really should not upset anyone accidentally.
[...]
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 People who are no longer active on a project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.
Prevent misuse of unattended accounts I believe.
Isn't this the case?
Kind regards,
Ingrid
