On 21 February 2016 at 10:44, Fabio Alessandro Locati <fabiolocati@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I think these are three excellent proposals, thanks! -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
