On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Chuck Anderson <cra@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 2. Jeff Spaleta wanted metrics and verification to be sure the UAEL > maintainers were actually doing their job and maintaining the packages > they said they would, and metrics to be sure no one maintainer took on > too large of a load to prevent from getting burned out. > > I think it is unrealistic to require more oversight for UAEL than > there is for regular Fedora maintainers. Trust that they will do the > work. If they don't, follow the same policies and procedures we have > to deal with that in Fedora today. I think its unrealistic to not require more oversight for something that is essentially an open-ended commitment. if you are going to leave it as an open-ended commitment with no firm EOL on the branch then yes... i want metrics to make sure we aren't leaving people stuck in a weird state for critical but unmaintained items for what could be years. I also do not accept the idea that its okay to open up a Fedora branded branch which gives users absolutely no guidance as to how long the packages branch will be usable. I think its a poor use of the brand. I'm not talking about QA.. I'm talking about verifying that the volunteer maintainers are actually still in place a year+ later. How do make users aware that packages are unmaintained for 1+ years? Do you plan to expire unmaintained packages so new users don't have access to them?You have to have some process to verify that the maintainers are there because you are explicitly stating that the life of branch depends on an accurate count of the active maintainers. if you don't build a process to try to verify maintainer involvement..the branches could live forever because there is no pre-defined EOL. If the UAEL draft is not updated to include some firm EOL expectations, I will continue to push back concerning metrics as to maintainer commitment because the plan relies on maintainer commitment to set the EOL timeframe. How to address that concern is completely unexplored because up till this point the proponents haven't cared to try to address it. Honestly after several days of discussion this week are the proponents any further along than what was proposed in the UAEL draft? I haven't seen a single new idea. Until someone new, who is committed to moving an implementation forward steps forward, this discussion is moot. Would WPI give you some infrastructure resources to burn on this to supplement existing project infrastructure to demonstrate that it was a sustainable effort? -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
