I'm not so sure. This is really a question of what's the purpose of this module, and of the module system at all!
My first question would be why use this as a mode of recognition for people who weren't in modules? Do other recognition tools not exist? Are they lacking? Which method should be improved to cover this use case? As discussed above, this module isn't meant to recognize people for good work, only to acknowledge people who have been in the role. I don't imagine it's always been policy that anyone who contributed good code became a peer or owner of a module. I think that if we want to do this, we shouldn't treat it as the edge case. If we want to say that anyone who met this standard should have (had) x role on the module, then let's say that, and then make sure we have processes in place that review this and ensure it happens. On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> wrote: > On 31/12/15 18:51, Andrew McCreight wrote: > > I suppose technically a module owner can name anybody an emeritus peer by > > synthesizing it out of existing module owner operations (name person as > > peer, remove them as peer, add them as emeritus peer), so maybe that's > > sufficient for giving people in this particular situation some > recognition. > > I'd say that's a good fix. It seems anachronistic to make people > emeritus module owners for time when there wasn't a module (let's create > one earlier next time!) but making them an emeritus peer gives them that > "we appreciate your prior contributions" fistbump. > > Gerv > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
