| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> So emails went unanswered and users appeared to be ignored for this |
| 4 |
> period? |
| 5 |
> Comrel, like council, trustees, infra, security, QA et al. are all projects |
| 6 |
> that cannot be permitted to become inactive. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Certainly. That would be like not renewing the corporate |
| 10 |
registration, failing to file taxes in a timely manner, or having poor |
| 11 |
financial records. :) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The problem is that I've yet to hear an adequate solution for "not |
| 14 |
permitting" these sorts of projects to become inactive. They're |
| 15 |
volunteer efforts. They're active when people choose to make them |
| 16 |
active, but due to their nature it isn't like anybody can just step in |
| 17 |
and fill the roles. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In any case, let's start with the ideas we have so far. As with |
| 20 |
anything we need to work with what we have. We can all point to the |
| 21 |
things we don't like, but that won't fix them. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives