On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:13:11 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > 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. Here the maintainer would end the AWOL procedure with a comment in bugzilla, but afterwards might still not take proper action to fix the bug (and apply a patch or version upgrade). A different procedure is needed, in particular for the hard problems where months pass by without progress. Somebody to rule how to proceed. Somebody with the decision-power to open up the cvs acls for a package or to over-rule the package owner if necessary. Else the package collection cannot be called not community-driven in such areas. > > 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'. The last excuse I find questionable. Lack of time is a primary reason to search for co-maintainers. Else it becomes a hindrance. If specific issues are known, they can be summed up (briefly!) to give the contributors and potential co-maintainers some input to think about. Consider it home-work. Such brief feedback need not be ultimately convincing and may result in a series of comments over a longer period of time. -- Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) - Linux 2.6.23.15-137.fc8 loadavg: 1.10 1.18 1.04 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
