Simplify non-responsive maintainers policy Part 2

[Lyos Gemini Norezel]

On 10/21/2009 06:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lyos Gemini Norezel<lyos.gemininorezel at gmail.com>  writes:
>    
>> Why not just require a secondary email address?
>>      
> "Require" a secondary email address?  Not everyone has one, or wants
> to hand it over if they do.

In this day and age? It's highly unusual for people to only have one.
However, for those few who don't/don't want to 'hand it over'... we can 
require a
phone number, street address, or other such contact info. This would 
guarantee
one avenue of contact.

Another alternative... would be to include a 'waiver' of sorts... for 
those who really
insist... that would allow fedora/fedora volunteers to immediately 
orphan any and all
packages maintained by said packager *THE INSTANT* an email is declared 
defunct,
and/or the maintainer is unresponsive for more than a month or so.



>    That sounds more like a recipe for driving
> maintainers away than making sure you can contact them.
>
>    

Those that value privacy/invisibility over Fedora's goal/values/etc... sure.

If a maintainer is not willing to give an alternative means of contact, 
then why should
Fedora care whether or not a maintainer will lose their packages if 
corporate goes 'belly up'?

By 'corporate' I refer, in this case, to those who work for a company 
and have a company email,
and refuse to give alternate contact details.

The subtext here should be obvious... "No alternate means of contact? 
Must not have had much
interest. Who else wishes to maintain these packages?"

Sorry... but I fail to see your argument as a valid point while the rest 
of us are being charged with
the responsibility of ensuring Fedora's future.

Lyos Gemini Norezel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Lyos_GeminiNorezel.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 428 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20091022/21cda5cf/attachment.vcf>