On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 00:23, Mat Booth <fedora(a)matbooth.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 23:48, Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel(a)seyman.fr> wrote:
>
> * Peter Boy [29/09/2021 23:29] :
> >
> > Any ideas to get it started to fly?
>
> The first step should be to empty the group in FAS and remove its
> bugzilla account from component ownership in Bugzilla (I happen
> to think that this is not a good idea in general but it's even worse
> when the group has no active members).
>
> The second step should be to document the current state of affairs
> in the wiki along with the steps that someone would need to go through
> to revive the group for another try. We could the point anyone who
> wants to contribute to that page and get out of their way while they
> fix things.
>
> As an aside, I'm somewhat surprised that the only commit on the Java
> SIG's main wiki page in nearly 4 years is one that simply fixes a
> spelling mistake. This doesn't jive with the amount of discussion we've
> had on this list nor does it match the amount of work that people claim
> to have done on the stack in recent times.
I kind of hate this assumption that work only happens when SIGs are active.
I've been maintaining Java packages here for more than a decade, and
have seen SIGs come and go. The dormancy or not of a formal SIG has no
bearing at all on the amount of care that I have tried to give our
packages. And when discussions of revitalising the SIG inevitiably
appear, there's a thousand opinions about it from people who (a) are
not involved in Java packaging and (b) end up never *becoming*
involved in Java packaging. It's hard not to be cynical about such
sentiments.