Emeritus Committer status

[Chris Burroughs <ch...@gmail.com>]

A while ago [1] in the "committer and pmc requirements" thread emeritus
status came up (Alan's description quoted below).  But I don't think
there was consensus (or at least I could not find followup in the
archives).  Is this something we agree is a good idea?

> Why emeritus?  I think that it's important for people who are
evaluating the community to have an accurate sense of about how active
the community is in terms of committers and PMC members.  With that in
mind I think that the emeritus status/process should be a pain free,
non-punative, process where by emeritus members can be instantly
reactivated at solely their own request, i.e. there is no evaluation or
vote to reactivate them.


[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kafka-dev/201203.mbox/%3CCAOeJiJgzNNGFdKwo4dtWqSHDuZ5Yxn=UqrwJz3kEN7bPse_Ahg@mail.gmail.com%3E

Re: Emeritus Committer status

["Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>]

On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:

> I am fine either way. Not sure if there is a big difference between an
> inactive committer and an emeritus committer that can reactivate themselves
> at any time. I do agree it helps make it more clear who is doing work.

There's not a big difference other than visibility.  I think if the community is clear that one can always re-activate themselves they developers are more more likely to be upfront about their current commitments.

Up to you guys.


Regards,
Alan

 


> 
> -Jay
> 
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Chris Burroughs
> <ch...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> A while ago [1] in the "committer and pmc requirements" thread emeritus
>> status came up (Alan's description quoted below).  But I don't think
>> there was consensus (or at least I could not find followup in the
>> archives).  Is this something we agree is a good idea?
>> 
>>> Why emeritus?  I think that it's important for people who are
>> evaluating the community to have an accurate sense of about how active
>> the community is in terms of committers and PMC members.  With that in
>> mind I think that the emeritus status/process should be a pain free,
>> non-punative, process where by emeritus members can be instantly
>> reactivated at solely their own request, i.e. there is no evaluation or
>> vote to reactivate them.
>> 
>> 
>> [1]
>> 
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kafka-dev/201203.mbox/%3CCAOeJiJgzNNGFdKwo4dtWqSHDuZ5Yxn=UqrwJz3kEN7bPse_Ahg@mail.gmail.com%3E
>> 

Re: Emeritus Committer status

[Jay Kreps <ja...@gmail.com>]

I am fine either way. Not sure if there is a big difference between an
inactive committer and an emeritus committer that can reactivate themselves
at any time. I do agree it helps make it more clear who is doing work.

-Jay

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Chris Burroughs
<ch...@gmail.com>wrote:

> A while ago [1] in the "committer and pmc requirements" thread emeritus
> status came up (Alan's description quoted below).  But I don't think
> there was consensus (or at least I could not find followup in the
> archives).  Is this something we agree is a good idea?
>
> > Why emeritus?  I think that it's important for people who are
> evaluating the community to have an accurate sense of about how active
> the community is in terms of committers and PMC members.  With that in
> mind I think that the emeritus status/process should be a pain free,
> non-punative, process where by emeritus members can be instantly
> reactivated at solely their own request, i.e. there is no evaluation or
> vote to reactivate them.
>
>
> [1]
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kafka-dev/201203.mbox/%3CCAOeJiJgzNNGFdKwo4dtWqSHDuZ5Yxn=UqrwJz3kEN7bPse_Ahg@mail.gmail.com%3E
>