On Monday 26 February 2007 11:54, Chris Weyl wrote: > Why couldn't this just be handled by the existing AWOL process? In > theory, it should be even easier to confirm the AWOL in this case -- > another redhatter could ACK the person's departure (assuming they > haven't) and the process should go quickly. I'm not seeing the need > for two sets of rules, one for @redhat and one for everyone else; > isn't that what we're trying to move away from? Depends on how quickly this can be done and how many hoops one would have to jump through. Please bear in mind that I'm trying to find middle ground between a ton of volunteers and rules that apply to such and employees that are assigned to work on things. > Of course, this discussion is also assuming that the theoretical > person in question won't be responsible and take the minimum step of > "see ya, have fun with my packages" :) In the rare case the person was terminated, they may not be able to send such things. A manager could, but then again a manager probably already knows who is going to take on the orphaned packages. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpmPamcwihhF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
