Re: Minutes from d-i meeting on September, 26th
Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> writes:
> The major points are:
>
> - any objection to /me removing ppl who explicitely requested
> to be removed?
>From my part, it is the logical thing to do as they has requested it
:-), please do!
> - what to do with the 60 people who didn't answer at all?
We might do a new call and imho remove them. If they're not listening
to mail they're not active to the team and then they're not
contributing. We can keep a record of the names and then if someone
ask us to be readded, we can know if they were one of the previously not
active people.
> - what to do with the 6 people whose mail to their Alioth registered
> mail address is bouncing?
Remove them too if they cannot be hitted by any other way.
> - should I reveal who checked "wants to be RM" ? :-)
I think yes. :P I think if I was acting as one and wouldn't like to
be one (on the RM team), there's something really wrong ;P
> Except the latter (the person who answered this is one of the two
> current D-I RM....:-)), other questions are still opened.
>
> My current advice:
>
> - remove ppl who asked to be removed
> - send a very last notice with "we will remove your commit access" to
> the 60 non responsive people. I plan to do this by sending *personal*
> mails and not widely CC'ed mails or BCC'ed mails as some people
> arbitrarily reject such mails
> - manually handle the 6 people with bouncing addresses
>
>
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
Reply to: