----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM > Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy > > Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Matthias Runge"<mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> To: "Development discussions related to > >> Fedora"<devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM > >> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy > >> > >> On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > >>> I'm afraid we end up with more bureaucracy than we have now. I'm > >>> not > >>> against tracking some statistics, so you can look up who is > >>> active > >>> and > >>> probably will answer in few days, but I'd rather not use it for > >>> the > >>> unresponsive process. > >>> > >>> Marcela > >> I'm thinking about how to support Jóhann with a proven packager > >> (or > >> two). Since it seems not wanted by Fesco, to give him the > >> corresponding > >> rights to commit his changes directly? This final target (all > >> services > >> are supported by systemd) seems to be clear to everyone. > > This is a noble goal and I wish this finishes sooner. But attacking > > packagers by threatening is not gaining any support for the > > efforts. > > Most of us gained their commit rights by talking to the respective > > maintainers getting them approve us as comaintainers, it's a > > lengthy process I agree. But it's not that hard to ask for > > co-maintainership so one gets commit rights. I wonder whether > > someone refused to give commit rights for someone wanting to add > > systemd support in his package? > > People should finally understand that by threatening and > > over-bureaucracy nothing will improve. When someone wants to see a > > feature done he should get his hands dirty in all aspects - do the > > changes, find the maintainer, talk to them, get commit rights or > > get them to push changes, do builds if needed. We ship a > > distribution so if someone do something but doesn't integrate with > > the rest we have nothing. And integration is collaboration it's > > not something one can enforce with bureacracy. > > Alex, > > Don't be so touchy please. The truth is somewhere in between. There > are > maintainers who do not respond for whatever reason and there are > others > who are solving reported issue in a minute. I don't believe that it > was > meant to threaten anybody. You read the "Automating the > NonResponsiveMaintainers policy" as "remove the original maintainer" > or > "punish him" but it might be very well read in opposite way, exactly > as > you proposed. There is no need for drama. This is not the first discussion on the topic I'm involved into. There are such maintainers I agree. But what is the problem with the current NonResponsiveMaintainers policy? How would you automate this? And asking to do it in a week? Every packager deserves at least the few steps described into the current procedure. Alex > > > Vit > > > > > > Alex > > > > Alex > > > >> -- > >> Matthias Runge<mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> -- > >> devel mailing list > >> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
