Revisit Emeritus Stage Definitions

[bensternthal]

The Sovereign Tech Fund infrastructure project includes supporting sunsetting/emeritus projects.

As we look to audit our projects to see which (if any) might be emeritus, it's a good time to revisit the current definition and see if we want to make any changes.

From my perspective, I am hoping we could get a more precise definition of "active development" and the process for nominating and voting on a potential emeritus project. I think we should also look at the sunsetting checklist (per Tobie's suggestion) and think about any additional or changes to the infrastructure piece.

A potential example can be seen here. Specifically section 2.3.5:

2.3.5 Termination Review

• Termination Proposal Posted for 2 weeks:
• States reason for project termination being sought
• Calls out impact on other project, users, communities, and how those will be mitigated
• Indicates where the project would be archived
• Can be initiated by vote of project committers
• Can be initiated by TSC or PMC of containing project if there are either no remaining committers for the project or there have been no commits to the SCM in 18 months

[tobie]

Worth looking at the Sunsetting Checklist on that same page too.

[PaulaPaul]

Happy to help move this forward @bensternthal

[PaulaPaul]

Tagging the notes from today's call here @bensternthal (so that I can keep them handy for next time) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u2DbBRwOGdWLdV9wqM_X583xdR7XwgvklzYh9Yx03OE/edit?usp=sharing

[bensternthal]

Here is the WIP doc we'd like to review with the CPC. Once we get through some rounds of editing in Google we can create a PR to refine the content further.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HcKsUgw7EMSMueaNcl_VCC5tOJl8uF4aOW3dZpbpgjA/edit

[tobie]

This is great work! So glad to see this progressing like this.

…

--tobie

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 9:07 PM Benjamin Sternthal ***@***.***> wrote: Here is the WIP doc we'd like to review with the CPC. Once we get through some rounds of editing in Google we can create a PR to refine the content further. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HcKsUgw7EMSMueaNcl_VCC5tOJl8uF4aOW3dZpbpgjA/edit — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1185 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAA2QAHSMTNEHJSP2UMBGDYY5CRHAVCNFSM6AAAAAA5RSVNXKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMBUHA2TGMZXG4> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.*** com>

[ljharb]

Looks great overall! Although I notice under archival:

Provide a clear explanation for why the project is being archived and, if possible, recommend alternatives or forks.

Update the project's description and website link on GitHub to indicate that it is archived and where to find potential active forks or alternatives.

i don't notice anything similar under EOL. For example, I would assume that one possibility in both cases would be linking to long-term support providers when applicable?