Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:49:35PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I have nothing against this in principle, but how is this any
> > different from the people who manage the MIA database?
> The main difference is the automation of the process. MIA, which
> currently is 1 person, requires manual activity and efforts. If we
> agree that automatically, if you stop exercising your DD rights, you
> go away after 2 years, the energy which we currently spend in MIA [1]
> can be better spend in doing other QA activities.
> I really don't see the benefit in the added MIA layer. You stop
> working for Debian for a long period: you go away; the day you'll
> re-gain interest: you can come back.
If it's going to be automated, does it behoove us to also send automated
mails to DDs that are getting close to the two-year limit, warning them? Or
is it your view that 2 years without activity is so far beyond what's
reasonable that there's no reason to give such a warning?
You also seem to be suggesting that returning to Debian after being
auto-MIAed should be a trivial process ("the day you'll re-gain interest,
you can come back"). That's a departure from our current process, which
requires those who go MIA to re-submit themselves to the NM process. If it
*is* your position that MIAed developers should have an easier time getting
back into the project, à la emeritus status, can you explain why? For my
part, I strongly disagree with such an idea, which is one reason I think
"warning: your account will be disabled next month" type mails would be
beneficial, so that there's less pressure on us to give MIA developers a
pass when it comes to getting back in.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: