On Friday 06 June 2008, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 16:41 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > The policy here is the non responsive maintainer policy. Otherwise the > > primary maintainer should not be changed. However the redhat folks don't > > seem to follow this procedure and instead it seems that change in package > > maintainers owned by people @redhat is done by other procedures, > > including with more sharing of responsibility over package among groups. > > > > I am not sure that there is something that can be done in fedora about > > that issue. Maybe the exception should be written down explicitly such > > that people like you who is at redhat and in the community knows who > > to contact @redhat to follow the fedora rules. > > > > Also maybe I am mistaken and there are no specific rules for redhat > > people, only remnants from the past (like the many agg co-maintainer I > > have who are certainly not interested). > > Part of the problem is the CLA entry. Many Red Hat employees have a CLA > attached to their account through the redhat_cla, that is part of their > employment contract. When they leave Red Hat, that contract is no > longer valid, nor is their CLA status. In actuality, this is true of > any Fedora contributor that changes employers, we just have less > visibility into that and assume the maintainer is doing the right thing > wrt to their CLA status. This is only true if they are doing fedora work on company time. If they are doing fedora work on there own time then there is zero change.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.