Re: Re: implementing emeritus

On 12 Mar 2004 at 8:39, Klaus Guenther wrote: > 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. Did I get you folks right that we should even have an ex-helper status and things? Don't you think we're taking this a bit too far? It's okay to honour the work of a lead. But when it comes to devs I already have doubt if a former role is needed for those persons. And for helpers ... well, that's too far off imho. Stefan