Concerns about 'provenpackager' and why I didn't mass ACL open

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:59:41 -0500, Michael DeHaan wrote:

> I would hope the process here is to:
> 
> (A) email package-owner at fedoraproject.org about the version and/or file 
> a bugzilla

* There's a small group of people who complain to you if you mail them
privately instead of using bugzilla for EasyFix stuff. I do understand
that, but I hope they do watch their cvs commit notifications closely and
notice any changes merged by other committers, because if such changes
are overwritten (and that has happened before), the entire system fails.

* There's a larger group of people who can't handle all their bugzilla
traffic. They refer to bugzilla notification mails as "spam". This has
been discussed several times before. You can file a bug, and it won't be
looked at. You can file a bug and get a reply, but the issue won't be
fixed. You can ping such people repeatedly, and the issue would remain
unfixed even after many months. It's tiresome for reporters to deal
with such tickets and the additional disturbances from triagers or
scripts that threaten to close aging tickets for EOL.

> (B) have a process to handle things if the owner is MIA
> 
> Let's take the "I need X.Y.Z" case.

Are any examples known about X.Y.Z version upgrade requests that have not
been fulfilled and have been a problem before? Or is it just FUD, to
believe that someone from the provenpackager group (is that the final acl
group name?) runs mad in cvs/koji/bodhi and prepares such version upgrades
without a very good rationale and without permission from FESCo?