It's not the first time that the "inactive" bit there creates confusion. One idea would be to rename "charmers" to be more descriptive, rather than having a negative team (a team that does NOT do something). For example:
~charmers => all charmers ~charm-reviewers => only those who review; this team is a member of charmers too On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Jorge O. Castro <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Also it isn't clear at all what you mean by "I've removed it". Did you >> remove inactive-charmers from charmers or did you remove the team >> altogether? > > > He removed inactive-charmers from charmers. However in hindsight I think > what this really should be is: > > ~charmers < --- we maintain the charm store, we actively review and are > responsible for the charm store submissions. > ~non-reviewing-charmers <--- I help maintain the charm store but I don't > actively review. We're part of ~charmers and there is stuff I care about in > the store that I want to take care of, but not be responsible for the whole > thing. > > ~inactive-charmers <--- NOT a part of ~charmers, inactive but can activate. > I am retired so I shouldn't have access to the entire charm store. > > I've readded the team for now pending discussion on this list on what we > should do. > > -- > Jorge Castro > Canonical Ltd. > http://juju.ubuntu.com/ - Automate your Cloud Infrastructure > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > -- gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
