>>>>> "PO" == Peter Oliver <lists.fedoraproject.org@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: PO> Also, it's hard to volunteer to co-maintain a package which has a PO> non-responsive maintainer, because there is no one to grant you PO> access. Well, certainly there is but the issue is finding the proper way to ask for it. And I don't think we have any well-defined policy for that. Certainly admin privileges have been in the past to rectify this sort of situation on a one-off basis. I've done it a few times when presented with a reasonable case. Since the earliest days of pkgdb we've struggled with the best way to deal with requests for package comaintainership which went unprocessed. The problem has always been to maintain some reasonable openness while still allowing maintainers to have some control over what goes into a package. And now with the switch to pagure we've lost the means for someone to request access (though of course bugzilla works as a fallback while still preserving an audit trail). Personally I'd propose something like this as a policy: ----- If you are an existing packager and wish to be added as a comaintainer on a package, you should first communicate with the existing maintainers via email (PKG-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx), on IRC, in person, etc. But if you receive no response, please open a bugzilla ticket against the package. Use "Requesting comaintainer access to PKG" as the ticket summary. In the ticket description, please explain why you should be added as a comaintainer. (XXX perhaps include more detail on what someone should say.) If you have not received a response in (one month/two weeks/???) you may file a ticket with (FESCo/another group) requesting that you be granted commit access to the package. They will review your request and if warranted grant the requested permissions. If your need is urgent, perhaps because you are attempting to fix security issues or significant bugs in a package, you may also wish to contact the provenpackagers (XXX link) to ask them to merge a pull request for you. ----- PO> For simple packages that only require a minor version PO> update, invoking and following through the non-responsive maintainer PO> process is often more effort than the outstanding work required on PO> the package. True, but that's part of why we have provenpackagers. Certainly if there's no urgent need then there's no reason to go outside of existing policy but we should still have something in between "ask provenpackagers to merge ignored PRs" and "orphan packages because of unresponsive maintainers". If someone wants to help maintain a package, we really should consider just letting them. - J< _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
