Move inactive maintainers to emeritus #910
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Josh Dolitsky <josh@dolit.ski>
jdolitsky
requested review from
brendandburns,
jonjohnsonjr,
jstarks,
jonboulle,
stevvooe,
vbatts and
cyphar
as code owners
|
For more context, see opencontainers/tob#95 |
|
Pick the popcorn out of your teeth and give me a +1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. As much as it pains me to say it, given the 2/3 LGTM requirement for releases and certain kinds of motions, having maintainers which have been inactive for 5 years affects the project's ability to function.
If any of the maintainers want to rejoin actively working on the project, we'd welcome them back with open arms.
But in the sake of fairness we should wait a reasonable amount of time for @brendandburns and @jstarks to reply. This motion requires a 2/3 vote anyway...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The topic has come up before, in a particularly heated time. I'm glad that things have cooled off now and the references WG is rocking along.
And while this does appear to be a dropping of @microsoft.com emails, it is not such. I have not updated from my community address to my MSFT work address, and additionally @sajayantony has been very active and involved (and likely a good future maintainer candidate, but that's unrelated to this PR).
|
I am surprised. Other suggestions have been rejected due to a lack of a track record and @sajayantony has no commit history in the image-spec. This is not meant as an attack at all. I just want to understand the reasoning and if something has changed compared to last year. |
|
There is more than commit history that indicates dedication. There is also participation on the weekly calls, which Sajay attends nearly all. Besides, #911 is just my personal nomination which maintainers can take or leave. As Vince said, it's unrelated. @vrothberg do you disagree with the contents of this PR itself? |
Totally agree. I have no doubts on Sajay being a great candidate.
No, I very much agree. I would love to see the image-spec move forward. Last year, some (all?) proposals were closed (including mine). It remained unclear to me how the maintainership criteria look like and it somehow still is. I think it would help to provide references on why a certain candidate is a good fit. |
|
@vrothberg completely understand. I've just opened #912 to see if we can get this clarified. |
|
On 04/05/22 08:48 -0700, Valentin Rothberg wrote:
I think it would help to provide references on why a certain candidate is a good fit.
Big agree. Rose surfaced this last year. We need get this clarity posted
for the project
|
|
2 more approvals will get us to two-thirds quorum. cc @jonboulle @stevvooe (However, it's unclear from governance docs if quorum is even needed here) |
|
Just one more LGTM needed here. Ping @jonboulle @brendandburns @jstarks |
As stated in
EMRITUS.md:The last activity from these maintainers appears to be Jun 30, 2017, which predates my involvement in this community. As we make progress in areas such as the OCI Reference Types WG, it becomes critical to have active maintainers on this repository.
In my opinion, If you do not support this motion, it says a lot about your motivations and political agendas. Please consider this and do the right thing.