Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:06:38PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> There isn't but there should be. Rahul started to put together a policy >> for that that would have modified the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy. >> It was not approved by FESCo but I don't remember what the sticking >> points were. > > I found the FESCo meetng result: > > === Collective Maintenance Proposal === > * FESCo rejected the collective maintenance proposal (1) for now. They > had some concerns about the extra bureaucracy, and they wanted to see > how the new maintainer containment policy (2) and opening acls (3) to > packagers helps first, since these are to be implemented in the very > near future. If there is still a problem, this proposal could be > revisited. > > 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenance > 2. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/NewMaintainerContainment > 3. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/PackageACLOpening > > > The logs are at: > http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2008-07-30.html > > but not at lot more was said than what is in the summary. Okay, so it sounds like FESCo wants to see whether: 1) provenpackagers feel comfortable just stepping up and making changes after they've done due diligence trying to contact the maintainer. 2) Whether there will be any hurt feelings on the part of maintainers when provenpackagers make changes to their packages. Since the OP said they have provenpackager and has tried to contact thias, I guess it's time to see how these two work out. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
