Re: Re: implementing emeritus

Sorry for the delayed answer. But as mentioned in another email, I wasn't able to answer before, unfortunately. Imho such a status in the webinterface is not needed. In the readme it should be enough. And if, for ego's sake, we really need such a role, then it should make clear what the position of the person is. "Emeritus" is no normal word - be honest. You can look it up in a dictionary. But "inactive", "former" or something would be much more clear to everybody imho. Again: I don't think such a standard is needed. But if everybody thinks differnet, then we should give it a speaking name imho. On 11 Mar 2004 at 21:25, Greg Beaver wrote: > I didn't get the sense that this was agreed on. All ego aside, I > think "inactive" would be the most accurate role. It would also have > the desired effect of making sure people aren't bothered by emails > about projects they are not involved with. > > Daniel Convissor wrote: > > Hi Folks: > > > > Following up on the discussion from a few weeks ago about former > > maintainers, it seemed "emeritus" was the role acceded to. Attached > > are two patch files to implement such.