On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 02:27:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: > > No, it doesn't qualify, since the maintainer is known to be active. > > It does. A maintainer can be active and still neglecting some packages. Of course, this happens. But this is not covered by that policy. > Still, there ought to be a better solution. Comaintainership? There is no formal procedure in that case, with Rahul we proposed forced co-maintainership, but the policy was rejected by FESCo. FESCo said that this would be revised when provenpackager is done. I don't think anything changed with provenpackager, but, in any case, since it has been implemented, FESCo could revisit it. Still this is a controversial and touchy subject, the balance between bureaucracy and no handling of bugs is not an easy one. Actually the focus was only on bugs with a fix provided or discussed, not for every bugs, in our proposal: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenance -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
