RFC: EPEL branching if Fedora maintainer does not react

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 01.08.2007 18:59, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 August 2007 11:48:02 am Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> On Wednesday 01 August 2007 11:35:41 am Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both
>>> people will become co-maintainers for EPEL.  (Of course it can be
>>> extended to Fedora)
>> co-maintainership can be extended to Fedora also.
> 
> Just to make it full and clear 
> 
> If an EPEL maintainer wants to get a Fedora package into EPEL,
> first check the ContributorStatus document, located in the wiki at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus .
> 
> If the Fedora maintainer of the package has indicated a desire not to
> participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer can request the branch
> directly via the standard procedures (e.g. via bugzilla currently).  The 
> proposed EPEL maintainer should CC the Fedora maintainer on the branch 
> request, so the Fedora maintainer knows that the package is maintained in 
> EPEL as well.
> 
> If it is unclear if the Fedora maintainer of the package intends to 
> participate in EPEL then the proposed EPEL maintainer should mail the Fedora 
> maintainer

s/maintainer/& or open a bug/

> and ask about their plans for EPEL in general and the package at 
> hand.  If there is no answer within seven days the proposed EPEL maintainer 
> is free to request the EPEL branch and become the EPEL Maintainer (CC the 
> Fedora maintainer here as well).  If the Fedora maintainer decides not to be 
> active in EPEL they should be added to the CC list for all bugs  so that 
> collaboration can happen where a bug effects Fedora and EPEL.

Up to here (with or without the addition from above): +1

> If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, Then both 
> people will become co-maintainers for EPEL.  (Of course co-maintainership can 
> be extended to Fedora)

If I understand the last para correctly we have two maintainers one the
same level -- e.g. no primary per-release maintainer? That's not in line
with the co-maintainership policy, which makes sure there is always one
person as per-release primary maintainer which is responsible in the end
for the packages (and has the last word in case of disputes). I prefer
such a scheme, because two people co-maintaining a package in the end
could quickly lead to situation where each other thought the other one
will take care of the package.

So: -1 for this. I'm all for something like that as last para:

If the Fedora maintainer later decides to participate in EPEL, then he
and the EPEL maintainer should discuss which one takes care of the
package. One should become primary per release maintainer, which is kind
of responsible for the package in that release; the other should become
co-maintainer; how those two share the work is up to them.

CU
thl