Re: NM Report for Week Ending 23 Mar 2008
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Christoph Berg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Re: Paul Wise 2008-03-31 <email@example.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.
I didn't mail any of the NMs/AMs in the situation where the NM is on
hold and has an inactive AM. Should I do so now? There were four or
five names in that situation IIRC.
BTW, no need to CC, I'm subscribed.