On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:20:06 -0500 Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 11:53 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Shacristo <shacristo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com> wrote: One of the stated purposes of the quorum is to "ensure that TUs remain active in the job that they have taken on." Allowing circumvention of the quorum requirements will obviously undermine that.
TU's have a lot of different responsibilities. Prolonging a decided vote by six days to motivate or ensure that someone is active does not make sense to me. --Kaiting.
I would propose shortening the voting period then. I kind of like how the system is set up (not perfectly though) to remove the inactive TUs semi-automatically.
I agree though I'd say 5 days has to be a minimum, everyone has a couple of days when something needs to be finished and where except for getting a few runs at the build server not much of the TU stuff can be done, same goes for some days sick in bed. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4