Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Bruno Wolff III
bruno at wolff.to
Fri Mar 2 19:03:10 UTC 2012
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:53:55 -0500,
Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> 2) It doesn't solve the problem of a non-responsive maintainer where the
> requester *DOESN'T* want to take over the package.
> For example, just because I might have a an issue getting a needed change
> into glibc doesn't mean I would want take over glibc. Of course, without a
> willing maintainer to take over in this case, you're still stuck.
Yeah, I have seen similar cases where it seemed like people thought that
somehow another maintainer would get assigned or that the current maintainer
should be punished. I tried to point out, that just removing a current
maintainer from a package doesn't actually help get things fixed.
More information about the devel