Re: Paul Wise 2008-03-31 <[🔎] e13a36b30803310018g278a3c4fja2c327b444123dba@mail.gmail.com> > I note that several NMs are both on hold and have an inactive NM. I > think the NM report should differentiate such NMs from those that are > just on hold or just have an inactive NM. Not sure what the > appropriate action is for those who are both on hold and have an > inactive NM, but I've attached a patch for the NM report script. I > haven't tested it, but it looks OK to me. In an ideal world there shouldn't be any NMs with inactive AMs. At the moment we use this as a parking area for NMs that did not express to want to continue at the moment we set the AM inactive, but we should probably rather soft-reject those, or have some kind of "inactive" queue. (Rather the former, the latter would probably become some very dusty attic.) Let's see how the cleanup you triggered yields, and if the patch is still necessary then. Christoph -- cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature