Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako at redhat.com>
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 3:08:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch at redhat.com>
> > To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:54:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
> > 
> > Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Vít Ondruch"<vondruch at redhat.com>
> > >> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > >> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
> > >>
> > >> Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>> From: "Matthias Runge"<mrunge at matthias-runge.de>
> > >>>> To: "Development discussions related to
> > >>>> Fedora"<devel at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > >>>> 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.
> > >> Alex,
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > > This is not the first discussion on the topic I'm involved into.
> > > There are such maintainers I agree. But what is the problem with
> > > the current NonResponsiveMaintainers policy? How would you
> > > automate this? And asking to do it in a week?
> > > Every packager deserves at least the few steps described into the
> > >  current procedure.
> > 
> > The current procedure is a pain ... and it happens that after month
> > of
> > waiting, maintainer suddenly appear and (s)he is really angry "how
> > dare
> > you can call me unresponsive when I am just busy with other
> > projects/live". This is not good from opposite side. And that
> > happened
> > to me. So current procedure is at least pretty vague and there is
> > no
> > support in kind of some infrastructure. You have to check "hmm, is
> > it
> > already week since I last pinged somebody on BZ or ML? Hm, not yet.
> > Ok,
> > I'll wait".
> You see, the maintainer is not unresponsive. Noone can expect
> everyone to jump in immediately (week is close to that).
> If you get your commit rights automatically, no problem for anyone,
> right?

Probably extending the current process with give me commit rights step on the second week via fesco/fpc ticket?

Alex


> 
> Alex
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Vit
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > devel mailing list
> > devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel