On Feb 10, 2008 10:31 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Although it is different, I can't see how it is different with regard > with control over bad maintainers. And I can't see why the processes > right for Fedora are not right here. If you have an idea how to solve > that issue in fedora, submit it to FESCo and it will certainly work in > UAEL too. I'm not trying to control individuals.. I'm trying to get a realistic conditions for any branch built under this proposal to every actually die. Maintainership in name happens, it happens if Fedora right now and it will happen under your proposal. I'm not denying it. The difference is, the timelines we have right now are not held hostage by this sort of crap. Fedora release branches expire whether maintainers do the work or not. I will not support a proposal which lets a branch continue until the heat death of the universe( which could be next year based on my local ambient temperature measurements) simply because someone's named is assigned to a package. If you are going to have an open ended branch cycle, then you need to propose more specific metrics on effort performed versus effort needed to keep the branch healthy and open. Just a name next to a package, isn't good enough as a metric to keep a branch open. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
