Hmm, actually I have new proposal. Policy about active/inactive maintainers should be decided only by actual maintainers. In the true meritocracy way - if you don't maintain anything you don't have a say. Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Saturday, November 3, 2012 4:47:57 PM > Subject: Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or > RAID)) > > > > Am 03.11.2012 15:38, schrieb Emmanuel Seyman: > > * "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [02/11/2012 20:34] : > >> > >> That package would hardly be un-maintained if it has > >> co-maintainers > >> now does it... > > > > Absolutely. Hence my request that any process we put in place be > > package-focused rather than maintainer-focused > > why? > how will you do this? > if there is nothing to change on a apckage it is at it is > > if any maintainer not login he is INACTIVE > if a package has more maintainers it is no problem retire the > inactive maintainer > if a package has only one maintainer and he is gone away the package > has to be retired > > > > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
