----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 3:08:26 PM > Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> > > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:54:52 PM > > Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy > > > > Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): > > > > > > ----- 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. > > > > The current procedure is a pain ... and it happens that after month > > of > > waiting, maintainer suddenly appear and (s)he is really angry "how > > dare > > you can call me unresponsive when I am just busy with other > > projects/live". This is not good from opposite side. And that > > happened > > to me. So current procedure is at least pretty vague and there is > > no > > support in kind of some infrastructure. You have to check "hmm, is > > it > > already week since I last pinged somebody on BZ or ML? Hm, not yet. > > Ok, > > I'll wait". > You see, the maintainer is not unresponsive. Noone can expect > everyone to jump in immediately (week is close to that). > If you get your commit rights automatically, no problem for anyone, > right? Probably extending the current process with give me commit rights step on the second week via fesco/fpc ticket? Alex > > Alex > > > > > > > Vit > > > > > > -- > > 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
