Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Developer removal proposal

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Developer removal proposal
  • Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:49:04 -0600

Yay Top Posting!

Spent some time thinking about this, and what I'd like to do is:

* Lock the accounts on the server for people on "sabbatical."
* Remove their Voice/Ops from IRC, since that's our greatest public
facing thing, and we're supposed to have active people with Voice/Ops so
it's obvious who to talk to.

And I think that's it.

Any objections to doing just that?

--
David Kowis


On 02/05/2015 02:50 AM, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> On Feb 04, Vlad Glagolev [stealth AT tiberian.ru] wrote:
>> Therefore, per our developer organization document[1], the following
>> developers[2] are up for removal:
> ...
>> A vote against the removal may be cast. Follow our voting policy[4] if
>> in doubt.
>
> I'm not voting against per se but as the person who wrote and drove
> implementation of most of those policies originally I see little value in
> enforcing them at the present time.
>
> There are two primary reasons to enforce removal:
>
> 1) security, to avoid ssh keys sitting around that aren't used
> 2) avoid issues with inability to maintain quorum for voting
>
> For (1), we can lock accounts that are old without removing people, and
> re-enable them if they come back.
> For (2), we don't see a lot of actual interest in votes right now because
> of the activity level of things. If we did ever see a quorum problem, we
> could easily at that time move to higher enforcement.
>
> Meanwhile removing people that have contributed a lot to the distro over
> the years but have been on the same sabbatical many others have come and
> gone from doesn't buy us anything I can see in overcoming the issue the
> distro has right now, in fact it makes it harder to encourage people to get
> back into it if they do get time or interest.
>
> I'd at least suggest doing them the courtesy of an email to see if they
> have any intentions toward SMGL these days. Maybe they are bored and
> needing a project and just haven't thought of us in a while.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page