[Governance] Clarify response times for inactive core members #2501
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for conda-forge-previews ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Co-authored-by: Matthew R. Becker <[email protected]>
…nto inactive-emeritus
…ithub.io into inactive-emeritus
|
Sounds like we are not getting tons of comments here so I'll probably start a vote next week. Last chance for feedback @conda-forge/core :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There seems to be no mention whether the "still active?" question to core members is done in public or in private. Should it be one or the other? Does it need to be one or the other? I think for transparency, it would be beneficial to do it publicly (then we should probably also define the place, e.g. an issue on this repo).
I don't feel particular strong for either. I did envision an issue in core-notes, but mostly to avoid the noise of |
|
It could also be a PR against |
|
I support moving the governance to a separate repo. We'll have to update the docs to pull info from there, but that's fine. One potential downside is we may loose the git history on the original doc and the If we do this, one idea would be to push the entire docs repo as is to the new governance repo and then start removing things except the governance. This will retain all of the git history. |
|
There are some git techniques to move files while preserving history. Using patches, or |
|
I suggest we do it once this PR lands, though :) |
…ithub.io into inactive-emeritus
| @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ Here are defined the primary teams participating in conda-forge activities. | |||
| emeritus-core. Every 12 months, one core member should ask the rest of | |||
| the team to report their activity status. The question must only include two | |||
| answers: active or inactive. Core members must reply within four weeks. | |||
| The question should be asked in a public space (e.g. a Github issue/PR). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we specify exactly what we want here? The paragraph says to use the time-out quorum rules below and this is getting confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was trying to clarify @h-vetinari's question here: #2501 (review)
Maybe I should just say that this is a standard (non-sensitive) vote? Or what's the confusion about?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The text says
Individual and group activity inquiries must
at least follow the same contacting methods stated for Time-out Quorum Rules.
and also
The question should be asked in a public space (e.g. a Github issue/PR).
Those two things are not exactly the same as the quorum rules require notices to private email lists and chat channels. The quorum rules also specify a bump on the github issue, so I guess it all makes sense.
However, it is rather confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, I guess I should disambiguate "place where the vote is recorded" from "communication channels used to announce and remind about the vote".
|
Dear @conda-forge/core, I'd like to submit a vote to approve this PR. This is a change to our governance, which means that:
In order to invoke the time-out quorum rules, the vote will be open for 15 days. In other words, the vote will close on 2025-05-07, end of day, Anywhere on Earth. Use the following form to cast your vote: core
emeritus
|
PR Checklist:
docs/orcommunity/, you have added it to the sidebar in the corresponding_sidebar.jsonfileAs discussed in our core chat, adding an extra clause mimicking the language in conda/governance.