Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Clarification before Issue Vote

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Clarification before Issue Vote
  • Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:20:33 -0800

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.
[snip]
The Voting Policy[2] 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 bonnet.

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).

-sandalle

--
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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page