librsync orphaned

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Gianluca Sforna schrieb:
> On 9/19/06, Robert Scheck <fedora-extras-list.listman at linuxnetz.de> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
>>> I think you just have to  follow the guidelines here:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/AWOL_Maintainers
>> why just wait another three weeks (!) when the maintainer already had three
>> weeks time after the initial reminder for the mass rebuild?
> Because rules are rules?

IMHO: No. No. No.

Getting stuff done is the most important thing. Rules help organizing
"getting stuff done" when a large number of people work together. But
let's not stick to them blindly just because there are rules. We should
consider most of our rules (not all!) more as guidelines IMHO and we
should adjust them quickly if needed.

>> Original maintainer didn't build the package until now, so I really would
>> like to take it soon. I talked with Thorsten resulting in when there's no
>> real complaining by the folks here, taking should work...
> If someone from the upper spheres (a.k.a. Thorsten) agrees with you
> short-circuiting the policy, that's fine also for me.

Well, we didn't talk about this case explicit in FESCo IIRC. But my 2
cents on the whole issue:

A kind of AWOL process indirectly was started when the mass rebuild was
announced (that was more then three weeks ago). If maintainers didn't
showe up to rebuild their stuff -> packages considered mostly orphaned
(at least *if* the packager didn't rebuild one of his packages and seems
to be AWOL by common sense -- e.g. no other commits in the past weeks,
no posts on this mailing list and stuff like that). Other people should
be able to take over the packages quickly now in time to get the tree in
shape before FC6. E.g. announce it in the wiki and on the list that you
want to take over a package, wait two or three days, recheck if packager
is still AWOL, take it over. If the packager shows up again in the next
weeks -> give him his package back.

Just to be sure: That just my opinion. But I'd say if the other
FESCo-Members agree with this or a slightly adjusted variant of above
scheme let's just start using it.

CU
thl