I don't mind leaving people in myself. Unless we're using activity for something special, I don't see much point of cleaning up groups to remove people. The packagers group, for example, never removes people---even if they've gone inactive. Other package maintainers simply take over their packages.

Was there some reason for checking their activity? From what I remember, we only use it to check activity for users that have "Welcome to Fedora" tickets open, no?

I've just thought is was a good idea to apply this procedure here, because some group are applying this procedure ex. mindshare and ambasador...

just that, maybe I make a mistake, but I think is not a good idea leaving people forever in a FAS without any sense... just for only for stay....

if the procedure is like this in any time FAS group's will be cleaner...

Regards.,

I don't think it is a bad idea since We are using the join's sig group as a bootstrap group for giving "temporal" privileges like edit the wiki, so some cleanup doesn't sound bad

Yeh, it's OK for the temporary memberships. We track those:

Issues - fedora-join/Welcome-to-Fedora - Pagure.io

As part of the regular checks, these will also be removed or marked as inactive.

I'm not sure this needs to be applied to seasoned contributors who have gone inactive for a time. Things get busy, especially with the pandemic at the moment, and they should be able to come back and resume their work without having to apply to groups again. I.e., we trust them once and I don't see inactivity as a reason to take back our trust in them. Let them be---it doesn't cost us anything. Having a "clean" FAS has no advantages really, and the software can manage large number of accounts even if they're inactive. LIke I said, I've never seen any member of the packager team ever be removed from the group, and we know that lots of maintainers go inactive. It doesn't matter as long as the packages are taken up by someone else.

I'm not up to date with Mindshare and the Ambassadors teams unfortunately, but when I was, there was a reason for removing inactive Ambassadors: they are the face of Fedora and so must remain active to know what is happening in the community. I don't think the same reasons apply to Fedora-Join.

If we do want to do this, I'd want a very very high threshold for removing accounts from the FAS group and marking them as inactive. Perhaps 12-18 months. Then, we will want to document this removal in an "Inactive member policy" type SOP, make sure we notify/track these removals so that the process is transparent, and most importantly document how these members can get back in to the groups on their return---they should not have to start from 0 like newbies, right?

Thoughts?

I'm +1 for the high threshold (12 months) for the temporary memberships

We are a regular fas group, this means that our membership gives many rights (wiki edit, voting, fedorapeople, email alias, etc.)

We have an antecedent of misuse of these privileges (on the Wiki, by example) and we should avoid such scenarios as much as possible by being the entry point to the project's contribution.

+1

The Policy will be something like this:

The removal from membership is the act of acknowledging that someone's is not an activate member of the community; it is not "kicking someone out of the community."

We miss you! Our records indicate that you have not been active in the community for at least a year.

We're going to Set you as a inactive members and as usual you're Welcome! to Join the community again and not start from zero...

Note

I will update the docs too with this policy after execute the scripts again with a period of 12 months.

Regards.,

Sounds very good @hhlp +1k :)

--
Thanks,

Ankur

(Sent from mobile device)

The only one user who is inactive in period of 52 weeks at least one year is:

[!] No activity found for user lgmducazu

Note

However and going to create in docs the policy for inactive user's... next week's and close this ticket

any comment's?

Regards.,

Sounds great @hhlp , +1 from my side for the high threshold (i.e 1 Year),

I thought we'd ping lgmducazu once to check, but they don't seem to be on pagure? I thought they were meant to take over maintenance of the scientific spin :bulb:

This user is very strange he/she are in charges of a spin without activity in any part of the community, and he/she is linked of two ticket:

https://pagure.io/fedora-join/Fedora-Join/issue/201
https://pagure.io/fedora-project-schedule/issue/168

Note

I found the problem:

Username: lgmducazu
Last seen: 2020-04-18 12:35:59
Groups:
cla_done approved 2020-02-09 20:02:39.541959+00:00
fedora-join approved 2020-04-17 08:21:27.815284+00:00
cla_fpca approved 2020-02-09 20:02:39.534832+00:00
Total groups: 3

Username: lducazu
Last seen: 2020-10-24 16:02:01
Groups:
cla_done approved 2020-02-14 08:29:03.691890+00:00
fedora-join approved 2020-04-25 16:35:30.684786+00:00
cla_fedora approved 2009-11-29 22:40:52.515333+00:00
cla_fpca approved 2020-02-14 08:29:03.683783+00:00
Total groups: 4

Both are the same person.... one lgmducazu without activity and not loging in Pagure, and the other one with activity and login in Pagure...

lducazu ankursinha 2020-04-25 18:35:25 CEST 2020-04-25 18:35:30
lgmducazu ankursinha 2020-04-17 10:21:24 CEST 2020-04-17 10:21:27

Conclusion

1.- Deleted the dupe account.
2.- As a Spin scitech mainteniner should have a lot activity, Why the USER is not envolving in another Group to get CLA+1? There is a FAS group for this purpose not? -> scitech, Why the User doens't apply there?
3.- Why Don't we ping The USER in ticket #201 comment why don't apply to that group and close the ticket #201.
4.- I suppose the user doesn't have any problem to join the community....

Regards.,

+1 to remove the second account,

I do recall something about them creating a new account but then realising they already had one.

I'm going to close this ticket....

I ping the user to get their authorization and follow the progress there #201

Regards