Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Project governance: introduce "emeritus" member status #4150

Open
kenhys opened this issue Apr 14, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Project governance: introduce "emeritus" member status #4150

kenhys opened this issue Apr 14, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@kenhys
Copy link
Contributor

kenhys commented Apr 14, 2023

Describe the bug

Currently, there is no term for Fluentd maintainers.

More contributor involved, it tend to hard to call for voting in a timely manner which is described in Voting
because it requires 2/3 majority.

This situation is caused because inactive members and active members are treated as "same" individuals.

To Reproduce

N/A

Expected behavior

Introduce "emeritus" maintainer status

"emeritus" means:

  • Inactive members (no commit, no community activity) for SPECIFIC TERM(T.B.D.)
  • Marked inactive members "emeritus" and add such status will be described "emeritus" section in MAINTAINERS.md (do not remove because I honor their achievements)
  • No voting qualification

https://github.com/fluent/fluentd/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#voting should be revised such as:

New maintainers are proposed by an existing maintainer and are elected by a 2/3 majority organization vote.

Maintainers can be resigned or removed by a 2/3 majority organization vote.

Inactive or resigned members will be treated as having "emeritus" status. "emeritus" status of maintainers don't have a ballot to vote.
Inactive means: no commitment or no community activity for 5 years.

NOTE: above sentence is just an draft.

Your Environment

N/A

Your Configuration

N/A

Your Error Log

N/A

Additional context

Apache project introduces "emeritus"
ref. https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#emeritus

@daipom
Copy link
Contributor

daipom commented Apr 14, 2023

Background: At the previous vote, there was an issue of slow progress in voting.

@daipom
Copy link
Contributor

daipom commented Apr 14, 2023

Thanks for creating this issue!
I agree with these changes.
We might also consider the following.

If we make the threshold a percentage, it will be difficult to progress voting as the number of maintainers increases.
So, it may also be worth considering the condition such that a certain number of approvals(3?) and no objections are required.

ref: code modifications and veto of Apache Voting Process

@kenhys
Copy link
Contributor Author

kenhys commented Apr 14, 2023

About threshold issue is splitted into another issue.

@daipom
Copy link
Contributor

daipom commented Apr 14, 2023

Thanks!

@daipom
Copy link
Contributor

daipom commented Apr 14, 2023

If there is no disagreement in this direction, then we would consider the conditions that make a member emeritus, right?

Example:

  • No commitment or no community activity for 5 years. (An example @kenhys gives us)
  • Did not participate in the last 3 voting.
  • ...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants