[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: next FESCo meeting agenda.



Patrice Dumas wrote:
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.

Imagine that a maintainer is active on package foo but doesn't respond on
issues about pakage bar. It is not clear, in the AWOL policy whether the
AWOL procedure should be started or not. I believe it shouldn't, but instead
his sponsor may be contacted, and the issue sorted out with his help, or
escalated to FESCO as you say below.

The proposed AWOL policy states that the time line is 3 weeks. This is plenty of time for a FE package to make a comment.

If a FE package can not comment on a bug report for 3 weeks, then ignore the public take over request that is approved by FESCo... then we have a problem that is out side the scope of the proposed policy.

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.

In the current proposal, it isn't said that only serious defects qualify
for launching the AWOL procedure.

Define serious? Capture all possible definitions. What is serious to me may not be serious to you. As Michael said, common sense is required. As I have seen so far, the FE maitainers have plenty of this.

So, assuming that the AWOL procedure is not started too often, it would be

That's what I think should be avoided by providing enough guidelines.

This is *why* FESCo is required to approve the final step!

There are way too many "what if's" and "but then" to capture. Common sense is needed.

Thanks

Mihcael


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]