On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Paul Libbrecht <p...@hoplahup.net> wrote:
> So we should relaunch a vote? > (or... I should vote a no and relaunch?) > > paul > > > Le 16 mai 2011 à 23:44, Phil Steitz a écrit : > > >>> d) svn remains open (but no commits without revival vote) > >> It seems slightly too harsh to me. > >> Since jelly is among the heaviest targeted ones here, I think the whole > dormancy aspect would fit but preventing commits sounds like the best way to > "cap off any attempt of revival". > >> Couldn't we say > >> > > Good point. I would be OK with that change. > > > > Phil > >>> d) svn remains open (but no release without revival vote) > Dormant status feels like a death sentence of sorts or at least another barrier to entry. If a committer wants to fiddle with POMs for example across all of commons, he or she should be able to do so. Even a casual change like fixing typos would not be allowed. I wonder if the opposite would not be more interesting: showing which projects are Active. The whole dormant/active deliberation could be remedied with a page ranking project activity by commit + ML activity + last release date for example. The audience can decide what is active based on this table: Project Name, Commits Last Week/Month/Year | ML msg count week/month/year | Last Release and Date You get the idea... Gary > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
