No answer to easy bug policy

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 22:24 -0400, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > With Rahul, we prepared a new pollicy which aim is to force maintainers
> > to answer to easy fix bugs or orphan packages if they fail to do so in a
> > one month delay. It may look a bit rude, but hopefully it will help
> > spreading co-maintainership and quicker bugfixes. It is at
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenance
> >
> > In my opinion it should be added to the non responsive policy at
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers
> > I paste it here. Please comment. It should be proposed to FESCo after
> > discussion here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > = No answer to easy bug policy =
> >
> > == The Problem ==
> >
> > There are several occasions where the individual maintainers are still
> > active and working on some software packages while not fixing trivial
> > bugs on other software packages. If this occurs over a long period of
> > time, the maintainers should seek out co-maintainers or just be
> > orphaning the software packages they are not interested in. If it does
> > happen for a shorter periods, others can act as a buffer to avoid the
> > problem lingering for our users. Other experienced and trusted package
> > maintainers, developers or others in the community have offered a
> > specific simple solution to the problem in terms of patches or
> > recommendations that translate into straight forward solutions.
> > Maintainers are wary of stepping on each other's toes and clear
> > guidelines helps is setting expectations 
> >
> > == The solution ==
> >
> > When the situation described above happens, somebody (called the
> > reporter) can proceed with what is explained below. However, this 
> > should only be done in one bug at a time for each maintainer, even if
> > there are many such bugs for different or the same components.
> > To enforce that, a blocker bug should be associated with the bug such
> > that it is easy to see which maintainer is already concerned
> > by the procedure.
> >
> > The reporter put the following comment in the bug:
> >
> > ---
> >
> > As per the 'No answer to easy bug' policy, please answer within 2 weeks
> > whether
> >
> > * you allow others to fix this bug
> >
> > * you are not interested enough in that package to really keep on
> > * maintaining it by yourself, and are looking for a co-maintainer or 
> > to orphan the package
> >
> > If you don't answer after 2 weeks and one remainder lasting also at
> > least 2 week the package will be orphaned according to the policy stated
> > at <link>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > - The reporter blocks a blocker bug, such that before following the
> >   procedure another reporter can check that the packager hasn't have a
> > similar procedure already begun.
> >
> > - The blocker bug is left for at least 1 month, even if the maintainer
> >   answered, such that only one procedure per month can be engaged.
> >
> >
> > The idea is to avoid having people be able to bother maintainers more
> > than needed by having only one procedure opened at a time, while forcing
> > uninterested maintainers to orphan their packages.
> >
> > == References ==
> >  
> > * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/EncourageComaintainership
> > * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToModifyWhichPackages
> > * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers#Outline
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pat
> >
> >   
> 
> I'm no developer (not since the 6502 ASM days at any rate), but it seems 
> to me that this may cause some contention. I hate bureaucracy in all 
> it's forms, but I can see I slightly modified version of this being put 
> into use, PROVIDED the majority of developers concerned (ie., at least 
> 70%) agree to be bound by such rules. Otherwise, you risk losing alot of 
> people.

Indeed.  It seems like a stick to hit a stressed developer with - and
surely developers under external stresses, who do not maintain Fedora
packages as their day, job will be the ones most likely to have this
stick waved at them.  Their re-action may not be the one they or you
want in the short and long term.

I don't have a good counter-proposal, except to suggest that these
requests be handled as a HR, not a computer science process, and with
the greatest of tact. 

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.                  http://redhat.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080714/7f4a3766/attachment.sig>