Bruno Haible <[email protected]> writes: > Therefore I would now like to actually do it.
Thanks for working on this, it is important!
Maybe I am getting old, but one year seems like a fairly short period of
time. The list would be shortened with the following names if we used
two years:
Daiki Ueno
Dmitry V. Levin
Eric Blake
Siddhesh Poyarekar
So not radically different actually. It would be bad if this excercise
lead to less contributions.
How about using the one-year time frame, but give the person 6 months of
time after an email notifying them about this situation to make another
contribution and thus stay as committer?
> So, the list of people (to notify per mail and to remove from the
> membership list on savannah) are the following:
It would be nice to explain the reason for doing this, so nobody takes
offence. If I lost write permission to a project without a clear
justification that clearly doing so was for the benefit of the project,
I could feel that it was personal and feel offended. It could be brief,
just a paragraph or two. It could be part of the GNU maintainers
manual, to recommend once every year prune the list of people who have
write access to a project if they didn't use it. Maybe an email would
be a way to get people back into contributing? Having clear policies
helps everyone and usually reduces friction. How about this:
Hi. We have seen that you haven't used your write access to the
gnulib project within one year, and we miss you! To improve
robustness against supply-chain attacks, and thus increase our
trustworthyness, we believe write permissions should be restricted to
those that use it regulary. This is more of a request that you come
back than a good bye! If the write permission has not been used by
you within 6 months, we will remove it -- but as a previous
contributor, re-establishing write permissions should be a smooth
process whenever you are ready to contribute again!
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
