Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch at redhat.com>
> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
> 
> Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Matthias Runge"<mrunge at matthias-runge.de>
> >> To: "Development discussions related to
> >> Fedora"<devel at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
> >>
> >> On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> >>> I'm afraid we end up with more bureaucracy than we have now. I'm
> >>> not
> >>> against tracking some statistics, so you can look up who is
> >>> active
> >>> and
> >>> probably will answer in few days, but I'd rather not use it for
> >>> the
> >>> unresponsive process.
> >>>
> >>> Marcela
> >> I'm thinking about how to support Jóhann with a proven packager
> >> (or
> >> two). Since it seems not wanted by Fesco, to give him the
> >> corresponding
> >> rights to commit his changes directly? This final target (all
> >> services
> >> are supported by systemd) seems to be clear to everyone.
> > This is a noble goal and I wish this finishes sooner. But attacking
> > packagers by threatening is not gaining any support for the
> > efforts.
> > Most of us gained their commit rights by talking to the respective
> > maintainers getting them approve us as comaintainers, it's a
> > lengthy process I agree. But it's not that hard to ask for
> > co-maintainership so one gets commit rights. I wonder whether
> > someone refused to give commit rights for someone wanting to add
> > systemd support in his package?
> > People should finally understand that by threatening and
> > over-bureaucracy nothing will improve. When someone wants to see a
> > feature done he should get his hands dirty in all aspects - do the
> > changes, find the maintainer, talk to them, get commit rights or
> > get them to push changes, do builds if needed. We ship a
> > distribution so if someone do something but doesn't integrate with
> > the rest we have nothing. And integration is collaboration it's
> > not something one can enforce with bureacracy.
> 
> Alex,
> 
> Don't be so touchy please. The truth is somewhere in between. There
> are
> maintainers who do not respond for whatever reason and there are
> others
> who are solving reported issue in a minute. I don't believe that it
> was
> meant to threaten anybody. You read the "Automating the
> NonResponsiveMaintainers policy" as "remove the original maintainer"
> or
> "punish him" but it might be very well read in opposite way, exactly
> as
> you proposed. There is no need for drama.

This is not the first discussion on the topic I'm involved into. There are such maintainers I agree. But what is the problem with the current NonResponsiveMaintainers policy? How would you automate this? And asking to do it in a week? 
Every packager deserves at least the few steps described into the  current procedure. 

Alex

> 
> 
> Vit
> 
> 
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >> --
> >> Matthias Runge<mrunge at matthias-runge.de>
> >>                 <mrunge at fedoraproject.org>
> >> --
> >> devel mailing list
> >> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> 
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel