On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:10:53AM +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > This jumped out at me as particularly worrisome: > > On 19 February 2016 at 19:15, Fabio Alessandro Locati > <fabiolocati@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If Christopher will not respond, I can take care of: > [snip] > > Also I can help with the i3 packages as I volounteered few weeks ago and > > have been shot down by Christopher becase "no more help is needed". > > > > My personal opinion is that (with a few possible exceptions, perhaps > critical path, or a subset of that), co-maintainership requests > shouldn't ever be turned down. That's really not in the spirit of > Fedora. Which makes me wonder why, for most packages, we even need > approval from the point of contact when requesting commit access on > packages. > > Perhaps we need to have a clear policy on this? In my experience, only in two cases my requests for ACL have been denied: - one is the case we are speaking about, and you can read it from [0] - one is a case of a cold-sent ACL request that have been denied. Getting to talk 2 minutes with the POC, introducing myself and saying "hi" made him approve the ACL with no further questions asked. Now, I think that it makes sense to have the POC/Package Admins able to approve and/or decline requests. I think the following 3 improvements would greatly improve the ACL request experience: - auto-accept the ACL requests after 7 days of no POC/PA responded - introduce an (optional) text box to allow to bundle a message with the ACL request - allow (and force) a formal message in the case of ACL denial Best, Fale [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276844 -- Fabio Alessandro Locati PGP Fingerprint: B960 BE9D E7A8 FA12 273A 98BB 6D6A 29D6 709A 7851 https://keybase.io/fale
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
