Re: Declining package maintenance requests? (Was Re: Large number of packages to be orphaned on Feb 26)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 01:58:55PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/21/2016 11:44 AM, Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote:
> 
> >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
> 
> I am against any automated approvals and dislike your proposal. Also, I do
> not see how automated ACLs would change anything about the situation in
> question.

True,
Sorry, I should have clarified it better: this would solve the problem I
see way more present of unresponsive maintainers preventing new
maintainers to maintain packages.
 
> Besides this, 7 days would be much too short. 4 weeks would be much more
> appropriate.

If a person is not able to make a click in 7 days (maybe vacation
periods could be excluded from the count), why should he be able to do
so in the following 21 days? Also, Fedora already have ACL cases where
the POC/PA have 7 days to respond, otherwise a positive response is
assumed.

> >- introduce an (optional) text box to allow to bundle a message with the
> >   ACL request
> Such a message should be mandatory, because I've received ACLs from people
> I've never heard before and from "inexperienced and overly eager
> new-comers".

I have said optional because a lot of times the asking-maintainer and
the POC already knows each others. Obviusly a small message could be ok
in those cases as well.

> >- allow (and force) a formal message in the case of ACL denial
> This would mean to allow people to implement ACL-request spam, with the load
> ending on those peoples' shoulders who are actually doing the Fedora work.

I don't see how this could happend.
Maybe I explained my thought in a bad way.
I'll try to explain with an example:
- user A asks ACL for package X
- X POC decides to decline A request.
In my proposal, X must justify the decline.

Best,
Fale

-- 
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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux