Inactive charmers and charmers

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

It's not the first time that the "inactive" bit there creates
confusion. One idea would be to rename "charmers" to be more
descriptive, rather than having a negative team (a team that does NOT
do something). For example:

~charmers => all charmers
~charm-reviewers => only those who review; this team is a member of charmers too


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Jorge O. Castro <jorge at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Clint Byrum <clint at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also it isn't clear at all what you mean by "I've removed it". Did you
>> remove inactive-charmers from charmers or did you remove the team
>> altogether?
>
>
> He removed inactive-charmers from charmers. However in hindsight I think
> what this really should be is:
>
> ~charmers < --- we maintain the charm store, we actively review and are
> responsible for the charm store submissions.
> ~non-reviewing-charmers <--- I help maintain the charm store but I don't
> actively review. We're part of ~charmers and there is stuff I care about in
> the store that I want to take care of, but not be responsible for the whole
> thing.
>
> ~inactive-charmers <--- NOT a part of ~charmers, inactive but can activate.
> I am retired so I shouldn't have access to the entire charm store.
>
> I've readded the team for now pending discussion on this list on what we
> should do.
>
> --
> Jorge Castro
> Canonical Ltd.
> http://juju.ubuntu.com/ - Automate your Cloud Infrastructure
>
> --
> Juju mailing list
> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
>



-- 

gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net