On 26. 09. 21 21:20, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Should the @java-maint-sig group be removed from any packages it is
> still associated with? Should it be dissolved, and members be removed?
> Should the remaining ruins that used to be packages be orphaned?
> Retired? Buried? Forgotten?
Since many have moved this discussion away from this question, let me please
bring back the main reason this was posted.
Since the @java-maint-sig group is esentially non-responsive, I suggest we do
the following:
1) We remove all BZ assignee overrides to @java-maint-sig. This is a must.
2) We remove access of @java-maint-sig from all packages.
3) We ask the members of the group if they want to admin the list/BZ account.
3a) We give it to the volunteer.
3b) We empty the group and cancel the BZ account/list if nobody shows up.
4) We *don't orphan the packages*, they have some "de jure" maintainers.
Please do so! There is nothing worse than false assumptions like there is active Java SIG.
The packages that fail to install and/or build will eventually die out due to
the existing processes.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure