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

Collaborator offboarding nomination process in GOVERNANCE? #30252

Closed
trivikr opened this issue Nov 4, 2019 · 7 comments
Closed

Collaborator offboarding nomination process in GOVERNANCE? #30252

trivikr opened this issue Nov 4, 2019 · 7 comments
Labels
meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project.

Comments

@trivikr
Copy link
Member

trivikr commented Nov 4, 2019

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

  • The steps to follow while offboarding Collaborator are documented here
  • However, our GOVERNANCE.md doesn't document when to offboard collaborators

Describe the solution you'd like
Come up with a process on when to offboard collaborators, and document it in GOVERNANCE.md

Describe alternatives you've considered
Thanks to @Trott who has been regularly checking for inactive Collaborators, and moving them to emeriti status (Example: #30243)

@trivikr trivikr added the meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. label Nov 4, 2019
@trivikr
Copy link
Member Author

trivikr commented Nov 4, 2019

offboarding doc was added in #21103

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Nov 5, 2019

I'm OK not having concrete guidelines for when to offboard. If someone wants to add some guidelines, I don't mind, of course. But I'm not bothered by their absence either.

@gireeshpunathil
Copy link
Member

If put into a document, it is easy to be worked around. Further, we should aspire for all the collaborators to be active in the project. For these reasons, I am not keen on a documented off-boarding criteria. I am good with the current approach of running a procedure seasonally with two-way ratification, like @Trott has been doing!

@gireeshpunathil
Copy link
Member

@trivikr - what is the forward path for this? thanks!

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Jan 20, 2020

I think this can (and should) be closed. It's a reasonable suggestion but I don't think it's necessary and there are pitfalls as outlined in #30252 (comment). I would especially be concerned that criteria would discourage offboarding, as it has for TSC membership unfortunately.

I'm going to close this issue. Anyone who feels strongly the other way can re-open it or (probably better) open a PR for discussion.

@Trott Trott closed this as completed Jan 20, 2020
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Jan 20, 2020

Whoops, the "what is the path forward" question was directed at trivikr and not everyone in general. I'll re-open this, but I guess the above makes my recommendation clear.

@Trott Trott reopened this Jan 20, 2020
@trivikr
Copy link
Member Author

trivikr commented Jan 20, 2020

The issue has been open for over 2 months now. Looking at the discussion, the path forward is to not have offboarding criteria documented and run the procedure regularly to check for inactive collaborators.

@trivikr trivikr closed this as completed Jan 20, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants