next FESCo meeting agenda.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 10:32:36 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 07:27:09PM +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote:
> > Can this proposed policy be discussed in the next FESCo meeting?
> > 
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Policy
> 
> I think that only existing Fedora Contributors should be able to take over
> a package. However the sponsors should consider every contribution to 
> fedora extras, including working on AWOL packages for sponsorship.

This is contradictory.

With the current sponsorship process, all that is needed to find a sponsor
is to show a good understanding of the packaging [guidelines]. Yes, it may
be too easy for somebody to take an existing src.rpm (CVS checkout), bump
the version or release, present it as an update package for review and be
sponsored. But if it were not possible, the same person could request
review of a trivial new package, find a sponsor that way, and then
proceed to taking over orphans.

Conclusively, it's a sponsor's decision whether to accept a new contributor
and regardless of what he wants to work on.

It could also be that somebody writes

    "All the packages I'm interested in are in FE already. But if it is
     possible that we can work together on foo and bar, I'd like to offer
     my help."

and a sponsor and package maintainer accepts this without extra steps
or special requirements.

The general procedure for becoming a Fedora Extras Contributor, however,
is to provide a new package in accordance with the instructions found
in the Wiki.

> 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.

This is troublesome. It would need a specific example to explain why a maintainer
_is active_ but doesn't respond to an issue with one of his packages which causes
other people to demand action.

And, of course, if a contributor is still active and seems to ignore a
PR deliberately, there are ways to escalate that in case it is believed
that the issue is serious enough. It's certainly possible to contact FESCO.
Just do it and don't create overly complex policy documents.

> I also think that "a maintainer isn't answering their bugs, not answering 
> rebuild requests, emails or the like" opens a bit too much for interpretation.

No. There's no room for interpretations. There must be a bugzilla ticket,
where all attempts at contacting the packager must be mentioned and tracked,
and which explains what the issue with the package is.

> In my opinion it should be only serious issues that allows AWOL procedure.
> Like security bug, big usability bug, broken dependency, or a need to rebuild
> against newer library version. I don't think it would be right to allow 
> people to bug maintainers for minor/wrong issues and then start the AWOL 
> procedure.

It's called "common sense". But it is not easy to define. What may be a minor
defect in your point of view, could be considered a serious defect by other
users or packagers.

So, assuming that the AWOL procedure is not started too often, it would be
extremely impolite of a Fedora Extras Contributor to refuse to comment in
bugzilla. Especially when a fellow contributor joins the AWOL procedure in
agreement that the reported issue is serious.