On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >>>> 2.3. Committers >>>> >>>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical >>>> management. Committers have access to all project source control >>>> repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical >>>> discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project). >>>> >>>> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by >>>> a majority consensus of the active PMC members. A Committer is >>>> considered emeritus by their own declaration or by not contributing in >>>> any form to the project for over six months. An emeritus committer may >>>> request reinstatement of commit access from the PMC. Such >>>> reinstatement is subject to lazy consensus of active PMC members. >>> >>> Is this automatic? e.g., if someone doesn't contribute for six months >>> and comes back in July next year, do they have to request access, or is >>> this just a general guideline? >>> >> >> IMO, it would be a general guideline that the PMC would have to take >> action to execute. Does anyone else have on opinion on this? > > I would remove this... committership should not have some sort > of "activity limit" on it, simply due to the ebb-and-flow of > available cycles for committers. It's not unusual for committers > to all of a sudden get busy (or whatever) and not commit for > months at a time. >
Thanks for the advice Jim. The more I think about it, the more I agree. It makes me wonder what led other projects to including this sort of thing. I'd like to leave the concept of emeritus around though, specifically in the PMC. This is what can distinguish active vs inactive members, which is required for some of the actions to have a passing vote. It would be by the member's own selection. To get around the "what if he/she gets run over by a bus?" issue, the PMC has the ability to remove members and committers from the project. -chip
