GeezerVison

I'm still active...

I'm still active...

The TSC Charter specifies that removal in this situation is automatic:

A TSC member is automatically removed from the TSC if, during a 3-month period,
all of the following are true:

• They attend fewer than 25% of the regularly scheduled meetings.
• They do not participate in any TSC votes.

So, this PR is not a proposal or suggestion. It is an announcement of an automatic process. (The process is automatic and specified as such in the TSC Charter because we are terrible at doing this otherwise.)

The thing to do is for the remainder of the TSC to vote on reinstating you immediately. I'll tag this with tsc-agenda and add "reinstating @ronag" to the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Hopefully a quorum is at the meeting and we can get it done then.

A second thing to do might be to re-evaluate the criteria. I wouldn't want to over-correct for a single false-positive, though.

Can Robert vote for his own reinstating? Otherwise he will be kicked out by the bot automatically right away for the same reason 🙃

Can Robert vote for his own reinstating? Otherwise he will be kicked out by the bot automatically right away for the same reason 🙃

I can't tell how serious the question is so I'm going to answer it earnestly and be the kind of insufferable pedant that one is always sure to forget to include on party invitation lists.

No, he can't vote because he's not on the TSC technically.

However, it stands to reason that the 90 day windows starts when one is added to the TSC, so subsequent bot-removals can be closed.

If he attends tomorrow's meeting, that is likely to get him above the 25% threshold and it shouldn't be a problem. (I didn't check to confirm that this is correct, but it seems more likely than not. He has attended 3 of the last 13 TSC meetings.)

If we end up voting on something else (like the CPC seats) and he's at tomorrow's meeting, that could be a vote he can participate in as long as we reinstate first (which is one of the reasons I inserted it at the top of the agenda).

If I ever do get an invitation to anyone's parties ever again, I promise to NOT talk about this at the party. (Probably.)

Maybe we should have an action in place to warn a TSC member that they are pending removal ~1 month before this action would open the PR to remove them. (Not volunteering to implement this 😄 .)

Maybe we should have an action in place to warn a TSC member that they are pending removal ~1 month before this action would open the PR to remove them. (Not volunteering to implement this 😄 .)

As a first step, #43913 adds a verbose flag that outputs the attendance and voting data.

Voted to reinstate. 🎉

Robert seemed to be a victim of "not voting" as there are several TSC members who have attended fewer meetings in the past 90 days, but they've voted on things. Here are the attendance counts for the past 90 days:

{
  aduh95: 5,
  apapirovski: 1,
  BethGriggs: 11,
  BridgeAR: 4,
  ChALkeR: 5,
  cjihrig: 7,
  danielleadams: 4,
  fhinkel: 3,
  gireeshpunathil: 4,
  jasnell: 2,
  joyeecheung: 5,
  mcollina: 5,
  mhdawson: 7,
  RaisinTen: 7,
  richardlau: 11,
  ronag: 3,
  targos: 2,
  tniessen: 5,
  Trott: 8
}

(Geoffrey Booth is not included because he has not yet been a member for 90 days.)

Richard Lau and Bethany Griggs neck-and-neck for best attendance!

@Trott - can you pls double check the values or the logic that apply on it? because when I manually counted, I got 6, not 4 (13/07, 29/06, 22/06, 01/06, 27/04, 20/04)

@Trott - can you pls double check the values or the logic that apply on it? because when I manually counted, I got 6, not 4 (13/07, 29/06, 22/06, 01/06, 27/04, 20/04)

@gireeshpunathil You're not listed in the minutes in 2022-06-22.md. Is that a mistake in the minutes? (The program checks the minutes to determine attendance.)

20/04 is 91 days ago so isn't included.

ok, understood. when I looked at the 22/06 minutes, I saw my name, but on a closer look, looks like the list contain absentees as well, below the list of those present, and that confused me. thanks for clarifying Trott!