Re: Re: implementing emeritus

Daniel Convissor <danielc@analysisandsolutions.com> wrote: > Hola: > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:25:03PM -0500, Greg Beaver wrote: > > > > I didn't get the sense that this was agreed on. > > To me it seemed the majority of people participating in the thread agreed. > This included immediate appreciation by Stig, Martin, Klaus and myself. > Then David Grant came on board as well. No one spoke completely against > it, though some thought it would be better to just put notes about them in > the notes file or something This was my understanding as well. However, if that's not enough for everyone, bring on the discussion once again. :-) At any rate, thank you, Dan, for working out a quick solution! > while you thought a whole separate authors > element would be better. The reason I disapprove of this is that emeritus can also apply to a developer or helper. There is no necessity that the person receiving this role is an author. Perhaps "mere" bugfixes were sufficient to earn the original role. That does not justify classification as an author. Just my 2 cts. Klaus