Re: next FESCo meeting agenda.

[Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr>]

> >I also think that a maintainer should not be considered AWOL when he has
> >shown some activity in a package or other packages even if he doesn't 
> >respond to some bugs in a particular package. If he is still active in 
> >other parts of fedora extras, maybe it could be the sponsor responsibility
> >to try to come to an agreement.

No comment on that part?

> This is why its required to post to fedora-extras@ and a FESCo member 
> give approval.

Indeed, but I think that it should also be stated in the proposal. I propose
something along (for the first point in Outline):

When Fedora Extras member sees that a maintainer isn't answering serious 
bugs, in particular when there is a fix provided, and for the bugs related 
to security, major usability issues (crashs), request for rebuild against 
newer libs, and that the maintainer is not answering rebuild requests, 
emails or the like, they need to file a bug against the package in bugzilla 
asking for the maintainer to respond. 



--
Pat