On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:46 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One additional point I forgot to address: the initial concern was that > the KDE SIG would be implicitly responsible for maintaining these > packages if they are included in the main repository. From a purely > technical perspective, I think that we should state clearly that the > KDE SIG would be required only to provide advance notice of major > changes but would NOT be responsible for ensuring that these packages > adapt to them. Of course, communicating that to users is harder (and > they'll naturally report bugs to the wrong place in many cases), but I > think the KDE SIG is completely permitted to refuse and retarget any > issues that come up to the appropriate group. I would suggest that it is entirely reasonable that there be a threshold where if users continually report bugs that the KDE SIG must deal with (i.e. someone else's packages are causing excessive overhead for the SIG, even just to close/retarget the bugs/issues) that they can petition that the offending packages get suspended/removed. I don't know what that threshold will be, but I suspect the SIG will know it when they see it. I would suggest that the packager of those other packages monitors all new bugs/issues and "takes" them early and often to insure that the SIG is not unduly burdened, and the threshold petition would never need to be considered. -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
