Re: slowing down the stalled request process

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 8:02 AM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 10:55, Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Current process (two bugzilla pings, two weeks total time):
- 1st request
- one week goes by
- 2nd request
- one week goes by
- releng ticket to be added as a collaborator

Proposal A (three bugzilla pings, three weeks total time):
- 1st request
- one week goes by
- 2nd request
- one week goes by
- 3rd request
- one week goes by
- releng ticket to be added as a collaborator

Proposal B (two bugzilla pings, four weeks total time):
- 1st request
- two weeks go by
- 2nd request
- two weeks go by
- releng ticket to be added as a collaborator

I also think we can improve the process by having the last bugzilla
comment include setting the needsinfo flag.  Please share your
thoughts on these alternative process steps.

[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#stalled_epel_requests
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/

I prefer Proposal A.

I also like setting the needsinfo flag.  But instead of the "last" bugzilla comment, have it be the "2nd" bugzilla comment.
For both proposals having it be the "2nd" bugzilla comment gives two weeks for the needsinfo flag.


I prefer the current process with adding the needsinfo flag. I think A will get complaints that we are pinging too much, and B will get complaints that we didn't ask enough for them to remember (or we were still too fast because I was on a 6 week vacation, etc etc).


What if we call that Proposal C
- 1st request / with needsinfo flag
- one week goes by
- 2nd request
- one week goes by
- releng ticket to be added as a collaborator

Or would you rather the needsinfo be put on the 2nd week?

_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora QA]     [Fedora Triage]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Apps]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Maemo Users]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux