This is not about any particular instance, but browsing around pkgdb for various reasons I've run across ACL/pkgdb request that haven't gotten approved (or rejected). I know we all get busy but it's not right to ignore (intentionally or not) these requests from other packagers.
Some might be in favor of auto approval after a defined period of inactivity but what if someone goes on an extended vacation? How long is too long?
I think the least disruptive approach would be to start sending nag emails after a certain period (1 week?).
Thoughts?
Thanks, Richard
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:50:59AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
This is not about any particular instance, but browsing around pkgdb for various reasons I've run across ACL/pkgdb request that haven't gotten approved (or rejected). I know we all get busy but it's not right to ignore (intentionally or not) these requests from other packagers. Some might be in favor of auto approval after a defined period of inactivity but what if someone goes on an extended vacation? How long is too long? I think the least disruptive approach would be to start sending nag emails after a certain period (1 week?). Thoughts?
You mean these requests right? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/api/pendingacls
There are only 4684 of them :)
I've been pinging this list on a weekly basis a while back, helped a little but not much.
Pierre
On Seg, 2015-11-23 at 16:24 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:50:59AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
This is not about any particular instance, but browsing around pkgdb for various reasons I've run across ACL/pkgdb request that haven't gotten approved (or rejected). I know we all get busy but it's not right to ignore (intentionally or not) these requests from other packagers. Some might be in favor of auto approval after a defined period of inactivity but what if someone goes on an extended vacation? How long is too long? I think the least disruptive approach would be to start sending nag emails after a certain period (1 week?). Thoughts?
You mean these requests right? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/api/pendingacls
This list was useful for me, to know what I have pending.
I can propose another solution , based on Richard idea, instead begin a process of nonresponsive package maintainer, we can ask to put that user in automatic approve requests after a certain period.
Because request an nonresponsive process, is not pleasant ask this to a fellow, just because he is busy and that people can not understand well, so in this way can be one workaround to this situation .
I've been pinging this list on a weekly basis a while back, helped a little but not much.
On 23/11/15 14:50, Richard Shaw wrote:
This is not about any particular instance, but browsing around pkgdb for various reasons I've run across ACL/pkgdb request that haven't gotten approved (or rejected). I know we all get busy but it's not right to ignore (intentionally or not) these requests from other packagers.
Some might be in favor of auto approval after a defined period of inactivity but what if someone goes on an extended vacation? How long is too long?
I think the least disruptive approach would be to start sending nag emails after a certain period (1 week?).
Thoughts?
I don't think there are any official guidelines about ACL etiquette, but the approach I've always taken before requesting ACLs is to first post a comment on bugzilla or send an email to the owner(s) of the package to ask if they'd be happy, just to be polite.
On quite a few occasions I've received an ACL request (or many) out of the blue from a packager I haven't had any associated communication from (via email or bugzilla). I just ignore these requests (and reject eventually after giving them a chance to offer any form of communication).
I haven't ever denied anyone commit access that has asked, so I'm certainly not trying to create a wall around "my packages", but I think opening a line of communication (preferably in a public channel such as bugzilla) should be the default.
As such, I would be firmly against auto-approval. If the maintainer doesn't respond (via bugzilla or email) to a co-maintainership request and there are for example outstanding bugs then there is a non-responsive maintainer protocol.
Kind regards, Jamie
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Jamie Nguyen j@jamielinux.com wrote:
I don't think there are any official guidelines about ACL etiquette, but the approach I've always taken before requesting ACLs is to first post a comment on bugzilla or send an email to the owner(s) of the package to ask if they'd be happy, just to be polite.
On quite a few occasions I've received an ACL request (or many) out of the blue from a packager I haven't had any associated communication from (via email or bugzilla). I just ignore these requests (and reject eventually after giving them a chance to offer any form of communication).
Perhaps the fix for this is to have a comments field when requesting access to a package so you can easily do it in one step rather than have to use something else for the communications part.
Thanks, Richard
On 23/11/15 16:31, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Jamie Nguyen j@jamielinux.com wrote:
I don't think there are any official guidelines about ACL etiquette, but the approach I've always taken before requesting ACLs is to first post a comment on bugzilla or send an email to the owner(s) of the package to ask if they'd be happy, just to be polite.
On quite a few occasions I've received an ACL request (or many) out of the blue from a packager I haven't had any associated communication from (via email or bugzilla). I just ignore these requests (and reject eventually after giving them a chance to offer any form of communication).
Perhaps the fix for this is to have a comments field when requesting access to a package so you can easily do it in one step rather than have to use something else for the communications part.
Is communication that much of a chore? ;-) Requesting ACLs isn't really something the average packager does so many times a day that we need to optimize it with a comment system.
Kind regards, Jamie