On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:16:30 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hum not so sure that will effectively work at least the cleanup > process needs have take place before we start the next development > cycle atleast no later then GA so basically the "performance" review > of the maintainer would have taken place in F15 for F17 and would > take place in F16 for F18 etc... I didn't mean to suggest I was doing a performance review. I was just saying we could gather more data and see how widespread things are and how we could improve them. > > Note that we need to balance here cases like: > > > > * maintainer is very active, just ignoring $leafpackage right now. > > Indicator that the maintainer needs comaintainers Sure. We don't have this data currently anywhere central we can act on. > > * maintainer is on vacation/sick/etc > > Indicator that the maintainer needs comaintainers Sure. We don't have this data currently anywhere central we can act on. > > * maintainer needs help, we should try and help them out. > > > Indicator that the maintainer needs comaintainers if not that, > workload could be spread out to other community groups > ( provenpackager/QA etc ) Sure. We don't have this data currently anywhere central we can act on. > > * maintainer doesn't use our bugzilla as their primary bug zone. > > That problem can be solved technically as in be made transparent to > reports and maintainers ( reporters using our bugzilla but > maintainers using their relevant upstream one ) Not sure how off hand. ;( > > * maintainer maintains a software that has a vast number of bugs and > > they can't deal with them all. > > True but you would actually see that on the activity on the bug report Yes, you would see it on the collection of data report I suggest above as well. > > * maintainer is working on higher priority bug, so ignoring feature > > requests/etc. > > Again that would be seen on the activity on the bug report > > Encase we are "short" on maintainers one way to increase that pool > would be to drop the ownership model essentially making everybody > provenpackager and allow everbody to play in everybody's pool... I don't think thats completely a good idea. You would get lots of people not feeling responsible for anything in particular. You would get people changing things when they didn't have good communication with upstream or a good idea for bugreports, etc. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
