On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 08:54 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote: > On 2/26/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sunday 25 February 2007 23:16, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > Your example brings up an important but tangential point, however: In > > > the merged Core + Extras world (aka allowing community outside of Red > > > Hat to maintain "Core" packages) someone within Red Hat could leave Red > > > Hat and still want to maintain their packages for Fedora. In many > > > cases, this would be a good thing. So changing owners should still go > > > through some sort of process even when the maintainer involved is from > > > within Red Hat (not just have a rel-engineer make the change when the > > > Red Hatter takes another job.) > > > > While in theory this sounds good, but in practice I can really see those that > > leave RH or move to a different job within RH not wanting to keep up their > > Fedora packages, and in some cases not be able to communicate that or > > interact with that correctly (@redhat.com email address no longer valid, > > etc..) > > > > While it would be best if the process is followed, there needs to be some room > > for rel-eng interaction. There may be many packages maintained within Fedora > > purely by assignment. A RH manager assigns maintainership of given packages > > to given people, from Fedora to RHEL to any other product. When reassignment > > happens, it would be for the whole tree, not just the RHEL side. These > > aren't so much 'volunteers' so many of the rules/ideals don't apply. > > 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? > I agree with keeping a single set of rules that apply to everyone. However, we may be in more of a hurry with some packages than for others. We wouldn't want rpm to hang around for years with no maintainer, would we? ;-) So we should have some way to expedite the AWOL process. Or a way to expedite putting a new person in as a co-maintainer while the AWOL process is proceeding as normal. Some way that will allow us to switch Red Hat maintainers around efficiently but at the same time is general enough that it can apply to anyone in the community and can deal with the fact that just because you work for Red Hat doesn't always mean you only care about your packages because it's your job. So -- existing AWOL needs to be enhanced to make this case work in a timely fashion but there still needs to be more of a process than "Red Hat Manager says to change so we made it so." -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
