Orphaning package

[Hans de Goede]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:28:08 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
>> I'm so fed up with this (people not responding to trivial to fix bugs / bugs 
>> with patches attached) that I _regulary_ put a comment like this in bugzilla:
>>
>> Can you please fix this, this blocks X other bugs. I'm sorry todo this, but
>> consider this your first ping in the light of the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers
>>
>> Which sometimes gets people attention and sometimes not. I guess the 
>> NonResponsiveMaintainers policy is already an answer to this, which is why I 
>> use it, but I wonder if it is _the_ answer.
> 
> It's the AWOL procedure, and it assumes that the maintainer doesn't
> respond.
> 

True, but ...

> It doesn't cover the case, where a maintainer shows up from time to time,
> but still doesn't take the requested/recommended action (such as applying
> a patch or upgrading to a new upstream release).
> 

Well sofar no-one has been so naughty / abusive as to just put a pong comment 
in BZ and say, see I responded happy now? That would also be rather ill advised 
as I can guarantee I would cry wolf very loudly in public, resulting in a 
public grilling.

> And it boils down to FESCo deciding on how to proceed, which is exactly
> what is needed in the non-AWOL cases, too.
> 

Not necessarily in some cases it helps to wake people up, atleast long enough 
to open the ACL's for me, which although still is not good maintainership, but 
often is all that I need.

Which makes me think that as a possible solution to this, I would like to see:

1) Other rules about ACL's, currently lots of former core packages have 
inherited there ACL settings from core, but why are so many packages closed to 
cvs-extras?  I would really like to see an ACL guideline which enforces open 
ACL's unless the maintainer asks permission to close them to FESco.

Suggestion, the security people make a list of security sensitive packages, 
those get to keep their current ACL's the rest is opened up to cvsextras, 
unless a request is made to FESco before date <date>, then a list can be given 
to rel-eng / CVS-admin's, with do not open up these packages and please open up 
all others, which then could be run as a one time batch job to remove all those 
ancient no cvsextras access flags from a long time ago.

2) Some kind of guidelines document, where I really mean guidelines, and not 
rules as most of our current guidelines are, for when its ok to touch other 
people's packages without prior communication, and when and how much prior 
communication is needed.


Regards,

Hans