[lsp4e-dev] Defining rule for removing committers

[Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

[I've changed the title to better reflect ongoing discussion]

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Martin Lippert <mlippert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think the rule of “lets remove commit rights of people who didn’t vote” after each committer vote is too aggressive.

OK. I agree, and while it was what I wrote in the initial email, it's not exactly what I had in mind. We'll remove commit rights for inactive committers (as per EDP, see below) who didn't vote without further notice.

For active committers who didn't vote, just please vote ;)

For inactive "technical" committers who did vote, it's worth consideration whether to remove them or not. At the moment, let's interpret the vote as a sign of activity and keep the committers who did vote it. But that policy can change later.

And I also like to be very transparent about this. What are the rules for loosing commit rights?
Not voting once doesn’t seem to be enough. Not being active (as the summary of code/review/discussions/votes) for several month seems like a fair statement to me.

I agree, and the EDP actually defines that clearly: https://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/#4_7_Committers_and_Contributors

"""

At times, committers may become inactive for a variety of reasons. The decision making process of the project relies on active committers who respond to discussions and vote in a constructive and timely manner. The project leads are responsible for ensuring the smooth operation of the project. A committer who is disruptive, does not participate actively, or has been inactive for an extended period may have his or her commit status revoked by the project leads. Unless otherwise specified, "an extended period" is defined as "no activity for more than six months".

"""

So, unless we do want to setup different rules for LSP4E, I suggest we stick to this 6 months inactivity before considering to move a committer out.

And in term of scheduling, we should always use a new election as an opportunity to consider removing inactive committers by the way.

But as the EDP defines, not voting on a committer election isn't a criterion for removing a committer. It's just one more sign of inactivity to be considered for later pruning of committer.

Does it sound better that way?

--

Mickael Istria

Eclipse IDE developer, at Red Hat Developers community

Elected Committer Representative at the Eclipse Foundation board of directors