next FESCo meeting agenda.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:45:56 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:

> > Conclusively, it's a sponsor's decision whether to accept a new contributor
> > and regardless of what he wants to work on.
> 
> I completely agree on that. What I am saying is that one should be sponsored
> in order to take over a package.

A non-issue. So far, you cannot get the necessary access _without_ a
sponsor.

> Imagine that a maintainer is active on package foo but doesn't respond on
> issues about pakage bar.

But why is that?

What are we discussing here? I find such discussions tiresome and
unneeded. Please, let's not get lost in unimportant details before we even
have seen an AWOL procedure in action.

Do we care whether a person is busy with something that there is no time
to write a single word in almost a month? How do we know whether the
person notices incoming PRs at all? -- We do not care.

We want to create a procedure for finding out whether somebody is still
reachable. We want to know what can be done about somebody, who appears to
be unreachable according to the mandatory tracking of contact
attempts. What are the right steps?

The procedure is necessary, so at the time FESCO is contacted, there is
input which can be examined.

> It is not clear, in the AWOL policy whether the
> AWOL procedure should be started or not.

If you're unsure whether you've reported something serious, consult a
mailing-list first. There may be suggestions that a reported issue is
unimportant. After another month, possibly the situation changes and more
people think the package is in a desolate state which justifies starting
with the AWOL procedure.