On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 23:19, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Sebb, > > Thanks for the comments. > > On Jul 7, 2020, at 12:56 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 18:12, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'd like some feedback on this proposal. > > My objective in this project was and still is to allow members to easily if > not trivially change their status to emeritus. A secondary objective is to > make Secretary's work flow as easy as practical. > > So, I'd like feedback specifically on having the (request emeritus status) > button on the member's __self__ page to automatically file the request > document in emeritus-requests-received and send notice to secretary. > Secretary would not need to do anything until the 10 day rescission period > has ended, at which point Secretary would use a tool to make the member > emeritus. Tooling is not the important feedback request here. > > Anyone have an opinion? > > > Auto-filing seems OK to me. > > If the member files a second request before the first has been > processed, > > > The roster __self__ tool will not allow filing a second request. The (request > emeritus status) button is only available if the user is active without a > pending request. [1] > > So the second request can only occur if the member files a request manually. > By sending mail to secretary. Which has never happened during the last 15 > years that I've been paying attention.
OK, so not an issue. > I think there are 2 options: > - reject the second attempt. > - replace the file with the new one. This may cause the 10 day period to > reset. > > I don't see any value in keeping multiple copies of the request online at > once. > SVN will give access to earlier versions if really necessary. > > > Also, we can consider removing the emeritus-requests-rescinded files after > some time to avoid duplicates if the member subsequently files another > request that is also rescinded. Or just replace the file with the new version. Much the same effect, but easier to follow the history. > > > [1] if owner > if committer.member.status.include? 'Active' > if committer.forms['emeritus_request'] > emeritus_file_url = committer.forms['emeritus_request'] > _button.btn.btn_primary 'rescind emeritus request', > data_emeritus_file_url:emeritus_file_url, > name: 'action', value: 'rescind_emeritus' > else > _button.btn.btn_primary 'request emeritus status', > data_emeritus_person_name:@@person.public_name, > name: 'action', value: 'request_emeritus' > end > elsif committer.member.status.include? 'Emeritus' > _button.btn.btn_primary 'request reinstatement', > name: 'action', value: 'request_reinstatement' > end > end > > Thanks, > Craig > > On Jul 6, 2020, at 10:13 AM, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just one final observation. > > The emeritus work flow once this PR is merged: > > Member decides to go emeritus, navigates to their profile, and clicks > (request emeritus). This generates an emeritus request document and sends > mail to secretary. > > Secretary receives the mail, reviews the request, and files it in > emeritus-requests-received, and sends mail to the member. > > Ten days (or so) elapse. > > Secretary remembers that there is a pending emeritus request, navigates to > emeritus-requests-received, reviews the documents there, calculates the > effective date, and then navigates to the member's profile, double clicks > Member status, and clicks (emeritus). > > This can be improved: > > 1. The Member status box to (request emeritus) could directly put the request > into the proper place in emeritus-requests-received and send mail to the > member acknowledging the request. Secretary does not need to be involved at > this phase. Member could still rescind the emeritus request without getting > secretary involved. > > 2. The secretary workbench could scan the emeritus-requests-received along > with the incoming mail and post a separate list of things to do if there are > any pending emeritus requests. If secretary then examines the emeritus > request document, actions could include (emeritus) which would then do what > Member status does today. > > WDYT? > > Craig > > On Jul 4, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe this PR is ready for final review. Please let me know if you have > any concerns. > > https://github.com/apache/whimsy/pull/94 > > Thanks, > > Craig > > Craig L Russell > c...@apache.org > > > Craig L Russell > c...@apache.org > > > Craig L Russell > c...@apache.org > > > Craig L Russell > c...@apache.org >
