> >     <mailto:colin@...>>>
> >     >         wrote:
> >     >         > I'm not opposed to the idea of automatic demotion as
> >     long as there's a
> >     >         > lightweight way to fix it. I agree that it might have
> >     better results
> >     >         > if the goal is to actually only have active committers.
> >     >         >
> >     >         > As far as inactive PTLs, I think the project committers
> >     can just have
> >     >         > a vote to elect a new one whenever they see fit.
> >     >
> >     >         Right, that's what I gathered later on from the PTL
> >     discussion.
> >     >
> >     >         > For projects with no active committers, we have a
> >     procedure to
> >     >         > archive them after 18 moths of inactivity. See 2.5.3 here:
> >     >         > https://www.opendaylight.org/project-lifecycle-releases
> >     >
> >     >         Thanks, that answers my question. And since release
> >     participation is
> >     >         opt-in, inactive projects can be dropped from the list of
> >     things we
> >     >         care about quite quickly...
> >     >
> >     >         > I think that makes OpenDOVE and Affinity ready to be
> >     archived. I've
> >     >         > also taken to calling it an archival review and archive
> >     proposal just
> >     >         > because I think the terminology is better and I figure
> >     we can change
> >     >         > that when/if we need to have the Board update something
> >     else in the
> >     >         > lifecycle document. You can see we've had two such
> >     reviews already:
> >     >         > https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Archive_Proposals
> >     >
> >     >         One voluntary, one involuntary, which is nice as a reference.
> >     >