Unresponsive maintainer procedure for tuxbrewr

[Christian Dersch]

Hi all,

I tried to contact tuxbrewr some weeks ago (due to quassel bug fixes and
maintainance), without any response. Does anybody know how to contact
him? I already tried smparrish(a)gmail.com without success.

Info: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294472

Greetings,
Christian

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:48:25 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:

>  Hi all,
>  
>  I tried to contact tuxbrewr some weeks ago (due to quassel bug fixes and
>  maintainance), without any response. Does anybody know how to contact
>  him? I already tried smparrish(a)gmail.com without success.
>  
>  Info: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294472 
The same procedure has been started a few times, at least

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/736874
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/963890

Requesting co-maintainer access would be a way to solve such
isues.

[Christian Dersch]

On 01/12/2016 10:00 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  The same procedure has been started a few times, at least
>
>    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/736874
>    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/963890
>
>  Requesting co-maintainer access would be a way to solve such
>  isues.
>  --
>  
I requested it in pkgdb some weeks ago. Got no response, thats why I
started the unresponsive maintainer procedure.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:17:37 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:

>  > The same procedure has been started a few times, at least
>  >
>  >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/736874
>  >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/963890
>  >
>  > Requesting co-maintainer access would be a way to solve such
>  > isues.
>  >  
>  I requested it in pkgdb some weeks ago. Got no response, thats why I
>  started the unresponsive maintainer procedure. 
Isn't that tedious, inefficient and a waste of time? Having to start the
non-responsive maintainer procedure again and again just to get a response
(hopefully)? How long have the packages been unmaintained this time? Why
protect the package from getting a few co-maintainers? Would help not be
welcome in this case? Would FESCo insist on waiting for the procedure to
be completed instead of granting an exception?

 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintaine...

Now I dunno whether you would be happy with a belated response from
the maintainer, but something obviously doesn't work well here.

[Sven Lankes]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:30:27PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

>  Isn't that tedious, inefficient and a waste of time? 
As all of the unresponsive maintainer procedure.

Could we adjust the tooling so that a request for commit access is
automatically granted if it isn't answered within three months?

-- 
sven === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Sven Lankes <sven(a)lank.es&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:30:27PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Isn't that tedious, inefficient and a waste of time?
>
>  As all of the unresponsive maintainer procedure.
>
>  Could we adjust the tooling so that a request for commit access is
>  automatically granted if it isn't answered within three months? 
That's a potential security problem. If I, for example,  can get
commit access to any idle program by claiming it when the original
maintainer is most busy, with no review or doublecheck of my quality
as a new maintainer, I can commit madness on a lot of low maintenance
projects. Given so many thousands of Fedora packages, it could get
fascinatingly risky, especially if I start committing intriguing
little '%post' procedures that interfere in subtle ways with other
packages.

[Sven Lankes]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:06:40AM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

> > Could we adjust the tooling so that a request for commit access
> is
> > automatically granted if it isn't answered within three months? 
 
>  That's a potential security problem. If I, for example,  can get
>  commit access to any idle program by claiming it when the original
>  maintainer is most busy, with no review or doublecheck of my quality
>  as a new maintainer, I can commit madness on a lot of low maintenance
>  projects. 
As I understand it, your sponsor is supposed to look after your commits.

>  Given so many thousands of Fedora packages, it could get
>  fascinatingly risky, especially if I start committing intriguing
>  little '%post' procedures that interfere in subtle ways with other
>  packages. 
Yes - there is a risk. But the large number of ignored packages in my
mind is the higher security risk.

-- 
sven === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:27:03 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:

>  As I understand it, your sponsor is supposed to look after your
> commits. 
Not forever, though. Sponsorship is not a life-time duty, and monitoring
git commits isn't either. It's not even mentioned as a responsibility.
There are sponsors who don't do anything like that after approval a
single review request.

Strange things can happen, too. Sometimes, packagers submit flawless
packages for review, and once included in the collection, after some
months the packagers start messing up the packages in various ways.
They would not pass a review anymore.

[Kevin Kofler]

Christian Dersch wrote:
>  I tried to contact tuxbrewr some weeks ago (due to quassel bug fixes
> and
>  maintainance), without any response. Does anybody know how to contact
>  him? I already tried smparrish(a)gmail.com without success. 
FYI, it's been a long long time since we last heard from tuxbrewr here in 
the KDE SIG. I'd have thought he had been declared AWOL a long time ago.

        Kevin Kofler