On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > On 16 January 2012 09:16, Robert Burrell Donkin > <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Ross Gardler >> <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >>> On 15 January 2012 20:55, Robert Burrell Donkin >>> <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Voting to terminate a project through lack of success sends a very >>>> clear message. Being 'terminated' is a very clear and public >>>> punishment, both for Mentors and for the project. >>> >>> I'm not sure why people (not just you Rob) are fixating on the idea of >>> voting to terminate a podling. That is currently and will always be an >>> action of last resort. It is not a new option. We've already done it >>> for failed projects. >> >> Can you give an example of a project with an active community that has >> been terminated in this way? > > No - that is exactly my point. I can give an example of projects with > *inactive* communities that have been terminated. These proposals are > no different other than we should be able to identify such projects > more reliably (or see that what looks inactive today is actually > active).
The controversial and novel part of this thread is the pressure to terminate podlings with active communities against the best judgment of their Mentors. Robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
