Documentation: Change committer files to ".md" format.

Signed-off-by: Justin Pettit <jpettit@ovn.org>
Acked-by: Russell Bryant <russell@ovn.org>

4 files changed, 363 insertions, 351 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/automake.mk b/Documentation/automake.mk
index f38f99f3e..9b10df728 100644
--- a/Documentation/automake.mk
+++ b/Documentation/automake.mk
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 EXTRA_DIST += \
-	Documentation/committer-responsibilities \
-	Documentation/committer-grant-revocation \
+	Documentation/committer-responsibilities.md \
+	Documentation/committer-grant-revocation.md \
 	Documentation/group-selection-method-property.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/committer-grant-revocation b/Documentation/committer-grant-revocation
deleted file mode 100644
index 1e582b600..000000000
--- a/Documentation/committer-grant-revocation
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,346 +0,0 @@
-OVS Committer Grant/Revocation Policy
-=====================================
-An OVS committer is a participant in the project with the ability
-to commit code directly to the master repository. Commit access
-grants a broad ability to affect the progress of the project as
-presented by its most important artifact, the code and related
-resources that produce working binaries of Open vSwitch. As such
-it represents a significant level of trust in an individual's
-commitment to working with other committers and the community at
-large for the benefit of the project. It can not be granted
-lightly and, in the worst case, must be revocable if the trust
-placed in an individual was inappropriate.
-
-This document suggests guidelines for granting and revoking commit
-access. It is intended to provide a framework for evaluation of such
-decisions without specifying deterministic rules that wouldn't be
-sensitive to the nuance of specific situations. In the end the
-decision to grant or revoke committer privileges is a judgment call
-made by the existing set of committers.
-
-
-Granting Commit Access
-----------------------
-Granting commit access should be considered when a candidate has
-demonstrated the following in their interaction with the project:
-
-- Contribution of significant new features through the patch
-submission process where:
--- Submissions are free of obvious critical defects
--- Submissions do not typically require many iterations of
-improvement to be accepted
-- Consistent participation in code review of other's patches,
-including existing committers, with comments consistent with the
-overall project standards
-- Assistance to those in the community who are less knowledgeable
-through active participation in project forums such as the
-ovs-discuss mailing list.
-- Plans for sustained contribution to the project compatible with
-the project's direction as viewed by current committers.
-- Commitment to meet the expectations described in the
-"Expectations of Developer's with Open vSwitch Access"
-
-The process to grant commit access to a candidate is simple:
-
-- An existing committer nominates the candidate by sending an
-email to all existing committers with information
-substantiating the contributions of the candidate in the areas
-described above.
-- All existing committers discuss the pros and cons of granting
-commit access to the candidate in the email thread.
-- When the discussion has converged or a reasonable time has
-elapsed without discussion developing (e.g. a few business days)
-the nominator calls for a final decision on the candidate with a
-followup email to the thread.
-- Each committer may vote yes, no, or abstain by replying to the
-email thread. A failure to reply is an implicit abstention.
-- After votes from all existing committers have been collected or a
-reasonable time has elapsed for them to be provided (e.g. a
-couple of business days) the votes are evaluated. To be granted
-commit access the candidate must receive yes votes from a
-majority of the existing committers and zero no votes. Since a
-no vote is effectively a veto of the candidate it should be
-accompanied by a reason for the vote.
-- The nominator summarizes the result of the vote in an email to
-all existing committers.
-- If the vote to grant commit access passed, the candidate is
-contacted with an invitation to become a committer to the project
-which asks them to agree to the committer expectations
-documented on the project web site.
-- If the candidate agrees access is granted by setting up commit
-access to the repos on github.
-
-
-Revoking Commit Access
-----------------------
-There are two situations in which commit access might be revoked.
-
-The straightforward situation is a committer who is no longer
-active in the project and has no plans to become active in the near
-future. The process in this case is:
-
-- Any time after a committer has been inactive for more than 6
-months any other committer to the project may identify that
-committer as a candidate for revocation of commit access due to
-inactivity.
-- The plans of revocation should be sent in a private email to the
-candidate.
-- If the candidate for removal states plans to continue
-participating no action is taken and this process terminates.
-- If the candidate replies they no longer require commit
-access then commit access is removed and a notification is
-sent to the candidate and all existing committers.
-- If the candidate can not be reached within 1 week of the first
-attempting to contact this process continues.
-- A message proposing removal of commit access is sent to the
-candidate and all other committers.
-- If the candidate for removal states plans to continue
-participating no action is taken.
-- If the candidate replies they no longer require commit
-access then their access is removed.
-- If the candidate can not be reached within 2 months of the
-second attempting to contact them, access is removed.
-- In any case, where access is removed, this fact is published
-through an email to all existing committers (including the
-candidate for removal).
-
-The more difficult situation is a committer who is behaving in a
-manner that is viewed as detrimental to the future of the project
-by other committers. This is a delicate situation with the
-potential for the creation of division within the greater
-community and should be handled with care. The process in this
-case is:
-
-- Discuss the behavior of concern with the individual privately and
-explain why you believe it is detrimental to the project. Stick
-to the facts and keep the email professional. Avoid personal
-attacks and the temptation to hypothesize about unknowable
-information such as the other's motivations. Make it clear that
-you would prefer not to discuss the behavior more widely but will
-have to raise it with other contributors if it does not change.
-Ideally the behavior is eliminated and no further action is
-required. If not,
-- Start an email thread with all committers, including the source
-of the behavior, describing the behavior and the reason it is
-detrimental to the project. The message should have the same
-tone as the private discussion and should generally repeat the
-same points covered in that discussion. The person whose
-behavior is being questioned should not be surprised by anything
-presented in this discussion. Ideally the wider discussion
-provides more perspective to all participants and the issue is
-resolved. If not,
-- Start an email thread with all committers except the source of
-the detrimental behavior requesting a vote on revocation of
-commit rights. Cite the discussion among all committers and
-describe all the reasons why it was not resolved satisfactorily.
-This email should be carefully written with the knowledge that the
-reasoning it contains may be published to the larger community
-to justify the decision.
-- Each committer may vote yes, no, or abstain by replying to the
-email thread. A failure to reply is an implicit abstention.
-- After all votes have been collected or a reasonable time has
-elapsed for them to be provided (e.g. a couple of business days)
-the votes are evaluated. For the request to revoke commit access
-for the candidate to pass it must receive yes votes from two
-thirds of the existing committers.
-- anyone that votes no must provide their reasoning, and
-- if the proposal passes then counter-arguments for the reasoning in
-no votes should also be documented along with the initial reasons
-the revocation was proposed. Ideally there should be no new
-counter-arguments supplied in a no vote as all concerns should
-have surfaced in the discussion before the vote.
-- The original person to propose revocation summarizes the result
-of the vote in an email to all existing committers excepting the
-candidate for removal.
-- If the vote to revoke commit access passes, access is removed and
-the candidate for revocation is informed of that fact and the
-reasons for it as documented in the email requesting the
-revocation vote.
-- Ideally the revoked committer peacefully leaves the community
-and no further action is required. However, there is a
-distinct possibility that he/she will try to generate support
-for his/her point of view within the larger community. In
-this case the reasoning for removing commit access as
-described in the request for a vote will be published to the
-community.
-
-
-Changing the Policy
--------------------
-The process for changing the policy is:
-
-- Propose the changes to the policy in an email to all current
-committers and request discussion.
-- After an appropriate period of discussion (a few days) update
-the proposal based on feedback if required and resend it to all
-current committers with a request for a formal vote.
-- After all votes have been collected or a reasonable time has
-elapsed for them to be provided (e.g. a couple of business days)
-the votes are evaluated. For the request to modify the policy to
-pass it must receive yes votes from two thirds of the existing
-committers.
-
-
-Template Emails
-===============
-
-Nomination to Grant Commit Access
----------------------------------
-I would like to nominate <candidate> for commit access. I believe
-<he/she> has met the conditions for commit access described in the
-committer grant policy on the project web site in the following
-ways:
-
-<list of requirements & evidence>
-
-Please reply to all in this message thread with your comments and
-questions. If that discussion concludes favorably I will request a
-formal vote on the nomination in a few days.
-
-
-Vote to Grant Commit Access
----------------------------
-I nominated <candidate> for commit access on <date>. Having
-allowed sufficient time for discussion it's now time to formally
-vote on the proposal.
-
-Please reply to all in this thread with your vote of: YES, NO, or
-ABSTAIN. A failure to reply will be counted as an abstention. If
-you vote NO, by our policy you must include the reasons for that
-vote in your reply. The deadline for votes is <date and time>.
-
-If a majority of committers vote YES and there are zero NO votes
-commit access will be granted.
-
-Vote Results for Grant of Commit Access
----------------------------------------
-The voting period for granting to commit access to <candidate>
-initiated at <date and time> is now closed with the following
-results:
-
-YES: <count of yes votes> (<% of voters>)
-NO: <count of no votes> (<% of voters>)
-ABSTAIN: <count of abstentions> (<% of voters>)
-
-Based on these results commit access <is/is NOT> granted.
-
-
-Invitation to Accepted Committer
---------------------------------
-Due to your sustained contributions to the Open vSwitch (OVS)
-project we would like to provide you with commit access to the
-project repository. Developers with commit access must agree to
-fulfill specific responsibilities described in the source
-repository:
-
-Documentation/committer-responsibilities
-
-Please let us know if you would like to accept commit access and if
-so that you agree to fulfill these responsibilities. Once we
-receive your response we'll set up access. We're looking forward
-continuing to work together to advance the Open vSwitch project.
-
-
-Proposal to Remove Commit Access for Inactivity
------------------------------------------------
-Committer <candidate> has been inactive for <duration>. I have
-attempted to privately contacted <him/her> and <he/she> could not
-be reached.
-
-Based on this I would like to formally propose removal of commit
-access. If a response to this message documenting the reasons to
-retain commit access is not received by <date> access will be
-removed.
-
-
-Notification of Commit Removal for Inactivity
-------------------------------------------------
-Committer <candidate> has been inactive for <duration>. <He/she>
-<stated no commit access is required/failed to respond> to the
-formal proposal to remove access on <date>. Commit access has
-now been removed.
-
-
-Proposal to Revoke Commit Access for Detrimental Behavior
----------------------------------------------------------
-I regret that I feel compelled to propose revocation of commit
-access for <candidate>. I have privately discussed with <him/her>
-the following reasons I believe <his/her> actions are detrimental
-to the project and we have failed to come to a mutual
-understanding:
-
-<List of reasons and supporting evidence>
-
-Please reply to all in this thread with your thoughts on this
-proposal. I plan to formally propose a vote on the proposal on or
-after <date and time>.
-
-It is important to get all discussion points both for and against
-the proposal on the table during the discussion period prior to the
-vote. Please make it a high priority to respond to this proposal
-with your thoughts.
-
-
-Vote to Revoke Commit Access
-----------------------------
-I nominated <candidate> for revocation of commit access on <date>.
-Having allowed sufficient time for discussion it's now time to
-formally vote on the proposal.
-
-Please reply to all in this thread with your vote of: YES, NO, or
-ABSTAIN. A failure to reply will be counted as an abstention. If
-you vote NO, by our policy you must include the reasons for that
-vote in your reply. The deadline for votes is <date and time>.
-
-If 2/3rds of committers vote YES commit access will be revoked.
-
-The following reasons for revocation have been given in the
-original proposal or during discussion:
-
-<list of reasons to remove access>
-
-The following reasons for retaining access were discussed:
-
-<list of reasons to retain access>
-
-The counter-argument for each reason for retaining access is:
-
-<list of counter-arguments for retaining access>
-
-
-Vote Results for Revocation of Commit Access
---------------------------------------------
-The voting period for revoking the commit access of <candidate>
-initiated at <date and time> is now closed with the following
-results:
-
-YES: <count of yes votes> (<% of voters>)
-NO: <count of no votes> (<% of voters>)
-ABSTAIN: <count of abstentions> (<% of voters>)
-
-Based on these results commit access <is/is NOT> revoked. The
-following reasons for retaining commit access were proposed in NO
-votes:
-
-<list of reasons>
-
-The counter-arguments for each of these reasons are:
-
-<list of counter-arguments>
-
-
-Notification of Commit Revocation for Detrimental Behavior
-----------------------------------------------------------
-After private discussion with you and careful consideration of the
-situation, the other committers to the Open vSwitch (OVS) project
-have concluded that it is in the best interest of the project that
-your commit access to the project repositories be revoked and this
-has now occurred.
-
-The reasons for this decision are:
-
-<list of reasons for removing access>
-
-While your goals and those of the project no longer appear to be
-aligned we greatly appreciate all the work you have done for the
-project and wish you continued success in your future work.
diff --git a/Documentation/committer-grant-revocation.md b/Documentation/committer-grant-revocation.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..191732fa9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/committer-grant-revocation.md
@@ -0,0 +1,356 @@
+OVS Committer Grant/Revocation Policy
+=====================================
+
+An OVS committer is a participant in the project with the ability
+to commit code directly to the master repository. Commit access
+grants a broad ability to affect the progress of the project as
+presented by its most important artifact, the code and related
+resources that produce working binaries of Open vSwitch. As such
+it represents a significant level of trust in an individual's
+commitment to working with other committers and the community at
+large for the benefit of the project. It can not be granted
+lightly and, in the worst case, must be revocable if the trust
+placed in an individual was inappropriate.
+
+This document suggests guidelines for granting and revoking commit
+access. It is intended to provide a framework for evaluation of such
+decisions without specifying deterministic rules that wouldn't be
+sensitive to the nuance of specific situations. In the end the
+decision to grant or revoke committer privileges is a judgment call
+made by the existing set of committers.
+
+Granting Commit Access
+----------------------
+
+Granting commit access should be considered when a candidate has
+demonstrated the following in their interaction with the project:
+
+* Contribution of significant new features through the patch
+  submission process where:
+  * Submissions are free of obvious critical defects
+  * Submissions do not typically require many iterations of
+    improvement to be accepted
+* Consistent participation in code review of other's patches,
+  including existing committers, with comments consistent with the
+  overall project standards
+* Assistance to those in the community who are less knowledgeable
+  through active participation in project forums such as the
+  ovs-discuss mailing list.
+* Plans for sustained contribution to the project compatible with
+  the project's direction as viewed by current committers.
+* Commitment to meet the expectations described in the
+  "Expectations of Developer's with Open vSwitch Access"
+
+The process to grant commit access to a candidate is simple:
+
+* An existing committer nominates the candidate by sending an
+  email to all existing committers with information
+  substantiating the contributions of the candidate in the areas
+  described above.
+* All existing committers discuss the pros and cons of granting
+  commit access to the candidate in the email thread.
+* When the discussion has converged or a reasonable time has
+  elapsed without discussion developing (e.g. a few business days)
+  the nominator calls for a final decision on the candidate with a
+  followup email to the thread.
+* Each committer may vote yes, no, or abstain by replying to the
+  email thread. A failure to reply is an implicit abstention.
+* After votes from all existing committers have been collected or a
+  reasonable time has elapsed for them to be provided (e.g. a
+  couple of business days) the votes are evaluated. To be granted
+  commit access the candidate must receive yes votes from a
+  majority of the existing committers and zero no votes. Since a
+  no vote is effectively a veto of the candidate it should be
+  accompanied by a reason for the vote.
+* The nominator summarizes the result of the vote in an email to
+  all existing committers.
+* If the vote to grant commit access passed, the candidate is
+  contacted with an invitation to become a committer to the project
+  which asks them to agree to the committer expectations
+  documented on the project web site.
+* If the candidate agrees access is granted by setting up commit
+  access to the repos on github.
+
+Revoking Commit Access
+----------------------
+
+There are two situations in which commit access might be revoked.
+
+The straightforward situation is a committer who is no longer
+active in the project and has no plans to become active in the near
+future. The process in this case is:
+
+* Any time after a committer has been inactive for more than 6
+  months any other committer to the project may identify that
+  committer as a candidate for revocation of commit access due to
+  inactivity.
+* The plans of revocation should be sent in a private email to the
+  candidate.
+* If the candidate for removal states plans to continue
+  participating no action is taken and this process terminates.
+* If the candidate replies they no longer require commit
+  access then commit access is removed and a notification is
+  sent to the candidate and all existing committers.
+* If the candidate can not be reached within 1 week of the first
+  attempting to contact this process continues.
+* A message proposing removal of commit access is sent to the
+  candidate and all other committers.
+* If the candidate for removal states plans to continue
+  participating no action is taken.
+* If the candidate replies they no longer require commit
+  access then their access is removed.
+* If the candidate can not be reached within 2 months of the
+  second attempting to contact them, access is removed.
+* In any case, where access is removed, this fact is published
+  through an email to all existing committers (including the
+  candidate for removal).
+
+The more difficult situation is a committer who is behaving in a
+manner that is viewed as detrimental to the future of the project
+by other committers. This is a delicate situation with the
+potential for the creation of division within the greater
+community and should be handled with care. The process in this
+case is:
+
+* Discuss the behavior of concern with the individual privately and
+  explain why you believe it is detrimental to the project. Stick
+  to the facts and keep the email professional. Avoid personal
+  attacks and the temptation to hypothesize about unknowable
+  information such as the other's motivations. Make it clear that
+  you would prefer not to discuss the behavior more widely but will
+  have to raise it with other contributors if it does not change.
+  Ideally the behavior is eliminated and no further action is
+  required. If not,
+* Start an email thread with all committers, including the source
+  of the behavior, describing the behavior and the reason it is
+  detrimental to the project. The message should have the same
+  tone as the private discussion and should generally repeat the
+  same points covered in that discussion. The person whose
+  behavior is being questioned should not be surprised by anything
+  presented in this discussion. Ideally the wider discussion
+  provides more perspective to all participants and the issue is
+  resolved. If not,
+* Start an email thread with all committers except the source of
+  the detrimental behavior requesting a vote on revocation of
+  commit rights. Cite the discussion among all committers and
+  describe all the reasons why it was not resolved satisfactorily.
+  This email should be carefully written with the knowledge that the
+  reasoning it contains may be published to the larger community
+  to justify the decision.
+* Each committer may vote yes, no, or abstain by replying to the
+  email thread. A failure to reply is an implicit abstention.
+* After all votes have been collected or a reasonable time has
+  elapsed for them to be provided (e.g. a couple of business days)
+  the votes are evaluated. For the request to revoke commit access
+  for the candidate to pass it must receive yes votes from two
+  thirds of the existing committers.
+* anyone that votes no must provide their reasoning, and
+* if the proposal passes then counter-arguments for the reasoning in
+  no votes should also be documented along with the initial reasons
+  the revocation was proposed. Ideally there should be no new
+  counter-arguments supplied in a no vote as all concerns should
+  have surfaced in the discussion before the vote.
+* The original person to propose revocation summarizes the result
+  of the vote in an email to all existing committers excepting the
+  candidate for removal.
+* If the vote to revoke commit access passes, access is removed and
+  the candidate for revocation is informed of that fact and the
+  reasons for it as documented in the email requesting the
+  revocation vote.
+* Ideally the revoked committer peacefully leaves the community
+  and no further action is required. However, there is a
+  distinct possibility that he/she will try to generate support
+  for his/her point of view within the larger community. In
+  this case the reasoning for removing commit access as
+  described in the request for a vote will be published to the
+  community.
+
+Changing the Policy
+-------------------
+
+The process for changing the policy is:
+
+* Propose the changes to the policy in an email to all current
+  committers and request discussion.
+* After an appropriate period of discussion (a few days) update
+  the proposal based on feedback if required and resend it to all
+  current committers with a request for a formal vote.
+* After all votes have been collected or a reasonable time has
+  elapsed for them to be provided (e.g. a couple of business days)
+  the votes are evaluated. For the request to modify the policy to
+  pass it must receive yes votes from two thirds of the existing
+  committers.
+
+Template Emails
+===============
+
+Nomination to Grant Commit Access
+---------------------------------
+
+I would like to nominate *[candidate]* for commit access. I believe
+*[he/she]* has met the conditions for commit access described in the
+committer grant policy on the project web site in the following
+ways:
+
+*[list of requirements & evidence]*
+
+Please reply to all in this message thread with your comments and
+questions. If that discussion concludes favorably I will request a
+formal vote on the nomination in a few days.
+
+Vote to Grant Commit Access
+---------------------------
+
+I nominated *[candidate]* for commit access on *[date]*. Having
+allowed sufficient time for discussion it's now time to formally
+vote on the proposal.
+
+Please reply to all in this thread with your vote of: YES, NO, or
+ABSTAIN. A failure to reply will be counted as an abstention. If
+you vote NO, by our policy you must include the reasons for that
+vote in your reply. The deadline for votes is *[date and time]*.
+
+If a majority of committers vote YES and there are zero NO votes
+commit access will be granted.
+
+Vote Results for Grant of Commit Access
+---------------------------------------
+
+The voting period for granting to commit access to *[candidate]*
+initiated at *[date and time]* is now closed with the following
+results:
+
+YES: *[count of yes votes]* (*[% of voters]*)
+
+NO: *[count of no votes]* (*[% of voters]*)
+
+ABSTAIN: *[count of abstentions]* (*[% of voters]*)
+
+Based on these results commit access *[is/is NOT]* granted.
+
+
+Invitation to Accepted Committer
+--------------------------------
+
+Due to your sustained contributions to the Open vSwitch (OVS)
+project we would like to provide you with commit access to the
+project repository. Developers with commit access must agree to
+fulfill specific responsibilities described in the source
+repository:
+
+[committer-responsibilities](committer-responsibilities)
+
+Please let us know if you would like to accept commit access and if
+so that you agree to fulfill these responsibilities. Once we
+receive your response we'll set up access. We're looking forward
+continuing to work together to advance the Open vSwitch project.
+
+
+Proposal to Remove Commit Access for Inactivity
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Committer *[candidate]* has been inactive for *[duration]*. I have
+attempted to privately contacted *[him/her]* and *[he/she]* could not
+be reached.
+
+Based on this I would like to formally propose removal of commit
+access. If a response to this message documenting the reasons to
+retain commit access is not received by *[date]* access will be
+removed.
+
+
+Notification of Commit Removal for Inactivity
+------------------------------------------------
+
+Committer *[candidate]* has been inactive for *[duration]*. *[He/she]*
+*[stated no commit access is required/failed to respond]* to the
+formal proposal to remove access on *[date]*. Commit access has
+now been removed.
+
+
+Proposal to Revoke Commit Access for Detrimental Behavior
+---------------------------------------------------------
+
+I regret that I feel compelled to propose revocation of commit
+access for *[candidate]*. I have privately discussed with *[him/her]*
+the following reasons I believe *[his/her]* actions are detrimental
+to the project and we have failed to come to a mutual
+understanding:
+
+*[List of reasons and supporting evidence]*
+
+Please reply to all in this thread with your thoughts on this
+proposal. I plan to formally propose a vote on the proposal on or
+after *[date and time]*.
+
+It is important to get all discussion points both for and against
+the proposal on the table during the discussion period prior to the
+vote. Please make it a high priority to respond to this proposal
+with your thoughts.
+
+Vote to Revoke Commit Access
+----------------------------
+
+I nominated *[candidate]* for revocation of commit access on *[date]*.
+Having allowed sufficient time for discussion it's now time to
+formally vote on the proposal.
+
+Please reply to all in this thread with your vote of: YES, NO, or
+ABSTAIN. A failure to reply will be counted as an abstention. If
+you vote NO, by our policy you must include the reasons for that
+vote in your reply. The deadline for votes is *[date and time]*.
+
+If 2/3rds of committers vote YES commit access will be revoked.
+
+The following reasons for revocation have been given in the
+original proposal or during discussion:
+
+*[list of reasons to remove access]*
+
+The following reasons for retaining access were discussed:
+
+*[list of reasons to retain access]*
+
+The counter-argument for each reason for retaining access is:
+
+*[list of counter-arguments for retaining access]*
+
+Vote Results for Revocation of Commit Access
+--------------------------------------------
+
+The voting period for revoking the commit access of *[candidate]*
+initiated at *[date and time]* is now closed with the following
+results:
+
+* YES: *[count of yes votes]* (*[% of voters]*)
+
+* NO: *[count of no votes]* (*[% of voters]*)
+
+* ABSTAIN: *[count of abstentions]* (*[% of voters]*)
+
+Based on these results commit access *[is/is NOT]* revoked. The
+following reasons for retaining commit access were proposed in NO
+votes:
+
+*[list of reasons]*
+
+The counter-arguments for each of these reasons are:
+
+*[list of counter-arguments]*
+
+Notification of Commit Revocation for Detrimental Behavior
+----------------------------------------------------------
+
+After private discussion with you and careful consideration of the
+situation, the other committers to the Open vSwitch (OVS) project
+have concluded that it is in the best interest of the project that
+your commit access to the project repositories be revoked and this
+has now occurred.
+
+The reasons for this decision are:
+
+*[list of reasons for removing access]*
+
+While your goals and those of the project no longer appear to be
+aligned we greatly appreciate all the work you have done for the
+project and wish you continued success in your future work.
diff --git a/Documentation/committer-responsibilities b/Documentation/committer-responsibilities.md
index fccc99c92..9e93c4e67 100644
--- a/Documentation/committer-responsibilities
+++ b/Documentation/committer-responsibilities.md
@@ -4,7 +4,8 @@ Expectations for Developers with Open vSwitch Repo Access
 Prerequisites
 -------------
 
-Be familiar with CodingStyle and CONTRIBUTING.
+Be familiar with [CodingStyle.md](../CodingStyle.md) and
+[CONTRIBUTING.md](../CONTRIBUTING.md).
 
 Review
 ------
@@ -68,9 +69,10 @@ occasionally does, bring it up on the mailing list. If you explain
 the use of "Signed-off-by:" to a new developer, explain not just how but
 why, since the intended meaning of "Signed-off-by:" is more important
 than the syntax. As part of your explanation, quote or provide a URL
-to the Developer's Certificate of Origin in CONTRIBUTING.
+to the Developer's Certificate of Origin in
+[CONTRIBUTING.md](../CONTRIBUTING.md).
 
 Use Reported-by: and Tested-by: tags in commit messages to indicate
 the source of a bug report.
 
-Keep the AUTHORS file up to date.
+Keep the [AUTHORS](../AUTHORS) file up to date.