On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 07:52:19PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Why? Grr! It does not take someone from FESCo to draft such a thing. > Anyone, yes ANYONE, can draft something and ask FESCo to ratify it. Indeed, but nobody has come with something now, so I think it would be nice to have FESCo propose something. > Now, frankly I'm not sure something outside of the existing AWOL > procedure is needed at all. I am sure of the contrary. AWOL is for people who are AWOL. Here we are talking about maintainers who are not AWOL but still don't act. It is a very different situation. If somebody AWOL has his packages forcefully orphaned there is no problem (it is even right...), while for a maintainer not AWOL, it may be considered to be rude. > I agree. Open CVS ACLs and co-maintainers _should_ help lessen the > occurrence of this. However, that is still up to the primary maintainer > to decide, and we have to take exceptions as they come. No, open CVS ACLs and co-maintainers don't help in that case. Well, it helps implementing the fix, but it isn't the issue here. Here we just want that the maintainer says 'ok, you seem to be interested, be co-maintainer, implement what you propose I'll check and rebuild'. Or 'Ok, propose a patch'. Or 'This seems to be an easy fix, but there are some issues you are missing, still I don't have currently the time to explain, I'll come back as time permit'. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
