Ignacio / AWOL Policy (Was: Contacting Ignacio ...)

[Brandon Holbrook <fedora theholbrooks org>]

Has anybody had any contact with Igzacio since this was first brought up 
in the FESCo meeting on the 19th?  Last we heard Warren was still trying 
to reach him by phone.  If so, what's the news?  If not, will somebody 
(preferably from FESCo) lay down a timeline for when the AWOL process 
began and when the next set of deadlines will fall.  Do we start 
counting from when FESCo approved to start the AWOL process?  Does this 
particular instance warrant an expedited process since his absence 
started in May?  Are we as current maintainers allowed (as suggested and 
I mistakenly acted upon for php-json) to respond to his open bugzilla 
reports, or does all our red tape impede progress?

I agree with Till that the AWOL policy should be amended to include the 
case when a Maintainer is AWOL from several (or all) of his packages, 
that all those packages are considered orphans up for adoption, and 
possibly removal further down the road if nobody is interested in taking 
them.  The current AWOL policy assumes there is always somebody ready 
and waiting to adopt the neglected package.

I also think (as hinted above) that an explicit provision should be made 
when other contributors can intercede and fix open bug reports (halfway 
through step 2?), especially for security-related bugs (maybe even a 
separate, sooner time for this).  3 weeks + 3 days + <time required to 
determine that a maintainer "isn't answering his bugs" (2+ weeks?)> is 
much too long to stall progress in the name of policy.

-Brandon

Michael J. Knox wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
>   
> > On Thursday 24 August 2006 01:16, Till Maas wrote:
> >     
> > > moodle (misses security fixes)
> > >       
> > I filled a bug report for this:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203844
> >     
>
> Ignacio has been missing for sometime. The AWOL guide lines is a good
> place to start. I think some people have picked up on some of his packages
> already, but the AWOL process should be used here.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michael
>
>