Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy

Vít Ondruch vondruch at
Fri Mar 2 12:37:53 UTC 2012

Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matthias Runge"<mrunge at>
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"<devel at>
>> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>> On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>> I'm afraid we end up with more bureaucracy than we have now. I'm
>>> not
>>> against tracking some statistics, so you can look up who is active
>>> and
>>> probably will answer in few days, but I'd rather not use it for the
>>> unresponsive process.
>>> Marcela
>> I'm thinking about how to support Jóhann with a proven packager (or
>> two). Since it seems not wanted by Fesco, to give him the
>> corresponding
>> rights to commit his changes directly? This final target (all
>> services
>> are supported by systemd) seems to be clear to everyone.
> This is a noble goal and I wish this finishes sooner. But attacking packagers by threatening is not gaining any support for the efforts.
> Most of us gained their commit rights by talking to the respective maintainers getting them approve us as comaintainers, it's a lengthy process I agree. But it's not that hard to ask for co-maintainership so one gets commit rights. I wonder whether someone refused to give commit rights for someone wanting to add systemd support in his package?
> People should finally understand that by threatening and over-bureaucracy nothing will improve. When someone wants to see a feature done he should get his hands dirty in all aspects - do the changes, find the maintainer, talk to them, get commit rights or get them to push changes, do builds if needed. We ship a distribution so if someone do something but doesn't integrate with the rest we have nothing. And integration is collaboration it's not something one can enforce with bureacracy.


Don't be so touchy please. The truth is somewhere in between. There are 
maintainers who do not respond for whatever reason and there are others 
who are solving reported issue in a minute. I don't believe that it was 
meant to threaten anybody. You read the "Automating the 
NonResponsiveMaintainers policy" as "remove the original maintainer" or 
"punish him" but it might be very well read in opposite way, exactly as 
you proposed. There is no need for drama.


> Alex
> Alex
>> --
>> Matthias Runge<mrunge at>
>>                 <mrunge at>
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at

More information about the devel mailing list