Repository navigation
Collaborator offboarding nomination process in GOVERNANCE? #30252
Description
Activity
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.
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!
Reacted by Michaël Zasso@trivikr - what is the forward path for this? thanks!
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.
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.
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.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
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)