On 23/11/15 14:50, Richard Shaw wrote: > This is not about any particular instance, but browsing around pkgdb for > various reasons I've run across ACL/pkgdb request that haven't gotten > approved (or rejected). I know we all get busy but it's not right to ignore > (intentionally or not) these requests from other packagers. > > Some might be in favor of auto approval after a defined period of > inactivity but what if someone goes on an extended vacation? How long is > too long? > > I think the least disruptive approach would be to start sending nag emails > after a certain period (1 week?). > > Thoughts? I don't think there are any official guidelines about ACL etiquette, but the approach I've always taken before requesting ACLs is to first post a comment on bugzilla or send an email to the owner(s) of the package to ask if they'd be happy, just to be polite. On quite a few occasions I've received an ACL request (or many) out of the blue from a packager I haven't had any associated communication from (via email or bugzilla). I just ignore these requests (and reject eventually after giving them a chance to offer any form of communication). I haven't ever denied anyone commit access that has asked, so I'm certainly not trying to create a wall around "my packages", but I think opening a line of communication (preferably in a public channel such as bugzilla) should be the default. As such, I would be firmly against auto-approval. If the maintainer doesn't respond (via bugzilla or email) to a co-maintainership request and there are for example outstanding bugs then there is a non-responsive maintainer protocol. Kind regards, Jamie -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
