On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 09:10 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 08:59 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 08:22 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 12:45 +0200, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 10:30 +0200, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > >> Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > > > > > > > >> How so? > > > > > > > > > > I really am going to try to make a good stab at maintaining the > > > > packages > > > > > I'm proposing for Fedora, but as I won't list my 'Vacations' in > > > > public, > > > > > > > > I don't mean to pester, but I'm curious. You have an averstion to > > > > documenting when you won't be available online, why? > > > > > > Because some people value privacy and his own business ? > > > > > > Besides 2 weeks may seem ok for an US PoV, cause we do not get vacations > > > here but in Europe and other parts of the world, people get normally 4/5 > > > weeks of vacation time and it is not rare for people to go on vacation > > > in places where there is no internet access (and I do not blame them if > > > they don't want to connect even if available during their vacation). > > > > > > A 2 weeks awol policy seem overly restrictive, although having > > > co-maintainers is certainly a smart idea for anybody. > > > > +1 > > > > I agree - 2 weeks is too restrictive of an AWOL policy. > > Great. What isn't too restrictive? > > I see lots of "2 weeks sucks!" but no other suggested timeframe. > 1 month of unresponsiveness I think would be reasonable. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
