Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 11/02/2012 06:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> Wrong. Do you know how few of the problems we see in Eclipse land don't need fixes upstreams? And some of these issues require man/months (years sometimes) upstream before there is smth to show in Fedora. Don't make your assumptions based on that. So if one logs in every few months to take a look at the number of bugs (nothing more) he is active but one that does fixes upstream for months before putting into Fedora is not. You see there is no black and white here!

Then that individual would simply log in or perform some other action to 
get him off that list...

> Plus, did you intentionally skipped the part about being active on A but not on B ? So if one does a good job of maintaining 9 packages but doesn't do it for 1 because he/she is overloaded we should dump him? And please don't tell me that a good maintainer would not do that because many of us don't know the count(not the names) of the things they are responsible for so it's more than easier for a component to goes unnoticed.

No I simply assumed that he would have logged in to fiddle with one or 
more packages he owns and or is responsible for which would clearly mark 
him *active*.

I know my English sucks on a good day but i thought it was clear I was 
speaking of checking logins in our infrastructure not *packages* or 
number of packages* maintainer might maintain since that's totally 
irrelevant and just brings unnecessary complication to the equation from 
my pov...

Instead of people constant bringing up hypothetical solution while we 
have plethora of unmaintained rotten packages in our repos why dont you 
try to come up with or propose an alternative solution to the problem at 
hand...

JBG