[SM-Discuss] Clarification before Issue Vote
eric at sandall.us
Fri Feb 1 19:20:33 EST 2008
Thanks for reading, Mark. :) Replies below.
Quoting Mark Bainter <mbainter-smgl at trampledstones.com>:
> Eric Sandall [eric at sandall.us] wrote:
>> In my opinion this should mean they are automatically removed as a general
>> developer, but as stated we still need to vote on their removal before it
>> becomes official.
>> The Voting Policy states:
>> So do we still need to do an official vote, but no one is required to vote
>> since it automatically passes?
> That's how it reads to me.
Just making sure I wasn't missing anything. :) If everyone else also
agrees I will clarify this to say that voting is only required if
non-removal votes are entered, otherwise it is assumed that everyone
required to vote and whom may optionally vote have voted to approve
the removal (thus they cannot be counted as missing a vote ;)).
>> Also, "activity" should either be redefined to allow for non-code
>> contributions (maintaining wiki, spreading the good word, system
>> maintainence, etc.) or we should have another category to list them
>> in honor,
>> but not confuse them with our "code monkeys". :)
> This is probably worth considering. I think I'd agree with that -
> though I'm guessing the reason we don't have it now is that we probably
> don't have all that many people who would fall in such a category.
Not too many, no, but I would like an exception written in so that
they cannot be "technically" removed if someone gets a bee in their
>> I would also like to add a note stating that extenuating circumstances (e.g.
>> e.g. hospitalization, military service, political service) reported to their
>> respective Component Lead *before* their time is up may mitigate the
>> automatic nomination/second (and removal if that's added).
> Well, I think the opportunity for everyone to vote against the removal
> is the failsafe to deal with both of these issues. I understand what
> you're saying about the work, but it seems to me like a nice way to
> avoid someone getting overlooked that way.
Very true, and several people brought that up on IRC. If no one else
disagrees that an official vote is required then I will clarify the
text to say so.
>> A third note I would like to add is what do we do with the developer's
>> accounts once they are removed (or they leave)? Disable? Delete?
>> Leave alone?
> I'm in favor of either disabling the accounts with a date notation for
> when they should be deleted - or just deleting them outright. Lots of
> disabled accounts cluttering things up is just asking for a security risk.
> And as you say, it's not that hard to re-add an account. If it mattered
> in terms of "seniority" or something then perhaps it would require more
> care but we're not that political...at least not as far as I can tell.
I prefer the account removal just because it's simple to add an
account and then we only need to worry about account add/remove
permissions, not who can modify which files and where (e.g. disabling
SSH keys then re-enabling).
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | http://counter.li.org/ #196285
More information about the SM-Discuss