Re: Change audit - is it still useful?

[Brett Porter <br...@porterclan.net>]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

The changes audit was initially looking for discrepancies in the older ACK process which was closer to the 72 hours. All of it was a guide to find major discrepancies rather than any hard and fast things to correct.

I haven’t run that script for a while - between the initial sync up and sebb’s ongoing review the records are in good shape. It might still be useful to update from time to time, but I don’t know that the static audit makes sense to list in whimsy now.

Cheers,
Brett

> On 20 Oct 2015, at 11:47 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
> Brett - thoughts?
> 
> $ svn log -l 1 pmc-changes-record.txt
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r55653 | brett | 2015-03-01 06:42:54 -0500 (Sun, 01 Mar 2015) | 2 lines
> 
> prep for 20150324 meeting
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:31 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just noticed the change audit, e.g. at the end of:
>> 
>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/axis
>> 
>> It appears to derive the expected change date from the date of the
>> NOTICE plus 72 hours.
>> 
>> However that is hardly ever going to agree with the date in committee-info.txt.
>> 
>> The normal process is to wait for the 72hrs to expire before inviting
>> the person.
>> They then have to accept (and may need to get an account), and the PMC
>> chair has to actually update the CI file. That cannot generally happen
>> in a day.
>> 
>> It's only possible for the date to agree if a provisional invite is
>> sent and accepted before the 72 hours are up, and the PMC chair
>> updates CI as soon as the 72 hours are up.
>> 
>> However it might be useful to report if the NOTICE e-mail cannot be
>> found, or if the date is before the 72hour expiry. Or possibly if the
>> CI date is much later than the NOTICE mail (though this does happen
>> fairly often)