Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

Tue Nov 6 13:17:41 UTC 2012

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch at redhat.com>
> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:56:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
> 
> So give me the permission [1] as well as the others who requested it
> before me.
> 
> Apparently the current owner doesn't care. You can compare the
> version
> history in koji [2] and [3] and if he doesn't care about one package,
> it
> is reasonable to doubt that the other packages will be in better
> state.

The problem here is that pkgdb requests are not auto approved after some timeout period if the maintainer hasn't reacted.
I remember I already said that in some past discussion on the topic. And it says nothing about the maintainer you speak about he might be back some time soon and be more active than all of us speaking here for some period. But if you declare him unresponsive and throw him away we as a community lose him forever.

Alexander Kurtakov

> 
> And please don't tell me about nonresponsive maintainer policy, if
> you
> want to speak about community and collaboration [4].
> 
> 
> Vit
> 
> 
> [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/rubygem-json
> [2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9017
> [3] https://rubygems.org/gems/json/versions
> [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620436
> 
> 
> 
> Dne 6.11.2012 12:58, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a):
> > I agree. I'd rather give people permission to co-maintain package,
> > then push them out of community. I'm afraid we can only loose
> > maintainers by measurements of activity.
> >
> > Marcela
> >
> > On 11/06/2012 12:10 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >> It's the whole thread that implies that not your mail only.
> >> No one managed to explain why there should be actions against
> >> people
> >> instead of packages. I would be really thankful if someone
> >> explains
> >> how he can getter better measurement of people activity than of
> >> package maintenance problems and what is the benefit of tracking
> >> persons activity - it's not a competition it's supposed to be a
> >> collaboration and every should do as much as he can and wants.
> >>
> >> Alexander Kurtakov
> >> Red Hat Eclipse team
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch at redhat.com>
> >>> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 12:55:27 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
> >>>
> >>> I don't know what are you reading in my response, but I
> >>> definitely
> >>> did
> >>> not propose anything like "noone wants people that are ready to
> >>> do
> >>> one
> >>> thing in a year".
> >>>
> >>> Vit
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dne 6.11.2012 09:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
> >>>> Where is the community spirit? What went wrong with fedora
> >>>> community? Why on earth do you people insist on tracking people
> >>>> activity and not try detecting unmaintained packages?
> >>>> Detecting unmaintained packages is even easier and has clearer
> >>>> metrics.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really, why noone wants people that are ready to do one thing in
> >>>> a
> >>>> year? Are many people here feeling superior than the rest of the
> >>>> world and think there is no need for further contributions and
> >>>> they can do everything alone ? I'm starting to be really worried
> >>>> for the path Fedora is going.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alexander Kurtakov
> >>>> Red Hat Eclipse team
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch at redhat.com>
> >>>>> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:28:11 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dne 5.11.2012 10:22, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a):
> >>>>>> On 11/02/2012 06:57 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/02/2012 04:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:44:06 +0000
> >>>>>>>> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> =?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?=
> >>>>>>>>>> <johannbg at gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +0000, "JÃ³hann B.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GuÃ°mundsson" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dead/un-maintained packages need to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> removed/reassigned
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> very *beginning* of an new development cycle so feature
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> owners
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and others working in the community are dealing with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> active
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> actively maintained packages.
> >>>>>>>>>> How exactly are you going to force maintainers who go
> >>>>>>>>>> missing
> >>>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>>> so at a prescheduled time?  Real life is seldom that
> >>>>>>>>>> convenient.
> >>>>>>>>> If at this point we dont have any process that can actively
> >>>>>>>>> tell
> >>>>>>>>> if a
> >>>>>>>>> maintainer is present and active within the project then we
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>> bigger fish to fry then the feature process...
> >>>>>>>> If we have problem A and problem B, can't we work on both at
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>> time? :)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Seriously it should not be anymore complex than monitoring
> >>>>>>>>> last
> >>>>>>>>> login
> >>>>>>>>> into the relevant infrastructure pieces to determine if the
> >>>>>>>>> relevant
> >>>>>>>>> maintainer is active or not.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> bash script + a cron job should suffice to achieve just
> >>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>> It's not at all that simple, I'm afraid.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How long since last activity do you consider someone
> >>>>>>>> 'inactive'
> >>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What if the packages that maintain simply don't need any
> >>>>>>>> changes?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What if they are on vacation?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What if they are active on package A, but not doing
> >>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> package B that you wish they would?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've long wanted to revamp our process.
> >>>>>>>> I welcome concrete proposals to do so.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Surely if an individual has not logged into for several
> >>>>>>> months
> >>>>>>> into our
> >>>>>>> infrastructure he must be inactive no?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bash script + a cron job that monitors login should suffice
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> check and
> >>>>>>> even email him asking him to confirm if he is active encase
> >>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>> a low
> >>>>>>> maintenance component and only logs in when something is
> >>>>>>> filed
> >>>>>>> ;)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> JBG
> >>>>>> No, he can own only one package and be an upstream of the
> >>>>>> package,
> >>>>>> therefore he will login only for update of the package.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are using your use-case for everyone. If you insist on
> >>>>>> automatic
> >>>>>> process, then the metric should work with more data.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Marcela
> >>>>> Requiring action every 6 months, such as pressing button "Yes,
> >>>>> I
> >>>>> am
> >>>>> still alive and kicking" in FAS after you are nagged by email,
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> be
> >>>>> acceptable annoyance even for such package maintainers,
> >>>>> wouldn't
> >>>>> be?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And there is such script, which is checking user activity on
> >>>>> several
> >>>>> places: https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-active-user
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vit
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 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
> >
> >
> 
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel