On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 05:49:50PM +0000, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > [Kiko, Salgado, we are talking about the case of ubuntu-dev which used > to have a lot of direct members but now will have just ubuntu-motu and > ubuntu-core-dev, and whether or not we should remove all the direct > members or just let them expire] >
In this specific case the expiration warning (even if it does contain a note saying the person will still be an indirect member) will be useless (IMHO), since they won't do anything about the soon-to-expire membership, so I think it'd be better to remove the direct members rather then waiting for them to expire. If you prefer to let them expire, please let me know so that I can land a workaround for https://launchpad.net/bugs/85409 which doesn't require a DB patch. Otherwise I'd prefer to fix it properly (with a DB patch) and wait until the drought finishes to land it. > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > I think we ought to do this proactively; it makes the team structure easier > > to grasp and avoids confusion over when membership expires. > > > > I was thinking to ask Salgado to change the expiration script to check > if the expiring direct membership would actually remove you from the > team, or if you would continue to participate in the team via other > memberships. In which case we should add a paragraph to the expiration > warning and notice saying: > > "You will, however, continue to be active in this team thanks to your > memberships in foo, bar and baz which are themselves part of the xxx team." > It'd be nice to have this, I think. Just filed launchpad.net/bugs/88488 so that I don't forget about it. Cheers, -- Guilherme Luis R. Salgado -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
