-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
ad823b6
commit 62157b9
Showing
2 changed files
with
6 additions
and
6 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
Validating CODEOWNERS rules …
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1 +1 @@ | ||
| * @reta @anasalkouz @andrross @reta @Bukhtawar @CEHENKLE @dblock @gbbafna @setiah @kartg @kotwanikunal @mch2 @nknize @owaiskazi19 @adnapibar @Rishikesh1159 @ryanbogan @saratvemulapalli @shwetathareja @dreamer-89 @tlfeng @VachaShah @xuezhou25 | ||
| * @reta @anasalkouz @andrross @reta @Bukhtawar @CEHENKLE @dblock @gbbafna @setiah @kartg @kotwanikunal @mch2 @nknize @owaiskazi19 @Rishikesh1159 @ryanbogan @saratvemulapalli @shwetathareja @dreamer-89 @tlfeng @VachaShah @xuezhou25 |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
62157b9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@anasalkouz where is the request from these folks to be moved to Emeritus? I don't see the audit trail and I just want to ensure this wasn't done unilaterally. /cc @CEHENKLE
62157b9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was part of a baseline, after which the repos followed the documented public process.
62157b9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@dblock where is Abbas' and Rabi's PR or request to be moved Emeritus? I didn't see it. Can you share (or link) here for posterity?
62157b9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nknize It doesn't exist and was done offline. It preceded the Emeritus process.
62157b9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The emeritus process was adopted by the project on April 13, 2022, this commit was merged almost a year later on March 15, 2023. Did we unilaterally move two committers to emeritus? If so, that's fine, mistakes happen but we should quickly correct it and give @adnapibar and @abbashus (per this commit in Dec 2022) back their commit bit. If they don't want it anymore we can reach out and ask and then move them emeritus?
62157b9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this commit only moved @adnapibar. The intent was to move inactive maintainers, but happy to reach out to @adnapibar to confirm.
For @abbashus, this happened in an earlier commit last year.
62157b9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@anasalkouz Abbas was unilaterally moved in this commit on Dec 9, 2022. Eight months after the process was committed. We need to ensure proper traceability per the process otherwise we have poor optics.
We should reinstate their commit bit and then reach out to see if they want to be moved emeritus or retain their maintainer status. In a typical foundation, a no response is not considered lazy consensus for moving to emeritus. The maintainer that has earned his/her status retains maintainership until they decide to move emeritus.
62157b9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nknize you're right about the sequence of events, my bad
Nobody was removed without their knowledge or without a maintainer asking them. I am 100% sure I've reached out to @abbashus at the time asking whether they want to maintain r/w access to OpenSearch before moving them to Emeritus as part of #5501, and same for @adnapibar, as part of baselining. If either feels otherwise, I'll be happy to move them back!