Losing package maintainers (Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17)

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:10:48 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote:

> > Even in the scenario of project-wide write-access to packages,
> > there must be someone to decide when to perform an upgrade.
>
> ... but this someone doesn't have to be an individual nor does it have 
> to be the package maintainer. It can be a group, it can be an expert or 
> a group of experts etc.

True.

However, with the current features of pkgdb, each member of such a group
would need to "subscribe to" the package in pkgdb. Not just for "commit"
access, but also for someone to monitor bugzilla *and* the package-owner
mail alias, which is convenient for team-work, too.

> The "1 package:1 owner" model works in commercial environments, where 
> "supposed to be skilled professionals" are supposed to be in _charge_ of 
> "customer care". It doesn't work well in an environment run by 
> volunteers, who often are laymen, work in their spare time and can not 
> be forced to anything.

We are not being forced to apply this model. However:

1) Whenever a current "owner" (in terms of pkgdb) is "lost" for various
reasons, often the co-maintainers in pkgdb don't want to continue with the
packaging.
Similarly, many current owners would rather like to get rid of a few
package ownerships and welcome a first co-maintainer as an opportunity to
transfer ownership.

2) More often than not, when I try to encourage a person (sometimes
complainers, sometimes self-proclaimed heavy-users) to consider becoming
a co-maintainer (who would be able to influence to package more than
a passive user), I meet refusal or silence. I regularly try to recruit
alleged Fedora users, talking to them and offering help. Typically, they
are not (!) concerned about too much bureaucracy, but about lack of skills.
It's way too easy to stay independent and retain the freedom to turn in
a hardcore-Fedora-critic who threatens with distro-hopping. Some do that
in private mail immediately after a reply to their bugzilla ticket, and
suddenly you're the primary target of a user's accumulated grief with
regard to various aspects of Fedora (not limited to MP3, Pulse Audio or
GNOME Shell).

> > No. We need _more_ packagers, even if that means, many more _newbie
> > packagers_.
> 
> Do you realize that such "demands for more people" often are symptoms of 
> a failing system?

Not immediately. If the only alternative is to open the flood-gates for
the infamous dumping-ground of unmaintained packages - No, thanks.
 
> The common alternatives are to "improve efficency" and to "improve 
> productivity" using those resources you have available. Approaches into 
> this direction would be "teaming up", "less burecracy" and a "less 
> volatile basis" to work with.