> Conclusively, it's a sponsor's decision whether to accept a new contributor > and regardless of what he wants to work on. I completely agree on that. What I am saying is that one should be sponsored in order to take over a package. > > I also think that a maintainer should not be considered AWOL when he has > > shown some activity in a package or other packages even if he doesn't > > respond to some bugs in a particular package. If he is still active in > > other parts of fedora extras, maybe it could be the sponsor responsibility > > to try to come to an agreement. > > This is troublesome. It would need a specific example to explain why a maintainer > _is active_ but doesn't respond to an issue with one of his packages which causes > other people to demand action. Imagine that a maintainer is active on package foo but doesn't respond on issues about pakage bar. It is not clear, in the AWOL policy whether the AWOL procedure should be started or not. I believe it shouldn't, but instead his sponsor may be contacted, and the issue sorted out with his help, or escalated to FESCO as you say below. > > against newer library version. I don't think it would be right to allow > > people to bug maintainers for minor/wrong issues and then start the AWOL > > procedure. > > It's called "common sense". But it is not easy to define. What may be a minor > defect in your point of view, could be considered a serious defect by other > users or packagers. In the current proposal, it isn't said that only serious defects qualify for launching the AWOL procedure. > So, assuming that the AWOL procedure is not started too often, it would be That's what I think should be avoided by providing enough guidelines. > extremely impolite of a Fedora Extras Contributor to refuse to comment in > bugzilla. Especially when a fellow contributor joins the AWOL procedure in > agreement that the reported issue is serious. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
