Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

Tue Nov 6 11:58:53 UTC 2012

I agree. I'd rather give people permission to co-maintain package, then 
push them out of community. I'm afraid we can only loose maintainers by 
measurements of activity.

Marcela

On 11/06/2012 12:10 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> It's the whole thread that implies that not your mail only.
> No one managed to explain why there should be actions against people instead of packages. I would be really thankful if someone explains how he can getter better measurement of people activity than of package maintenance problems and what is the benefit of tracking persons activity - it's not a competition it's supposed to be a collaboration and every should do as much as he can and wants.
>
> Alexander Kurtakov
> Red Hat Eclipse team
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch at redhat.com>
>> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 12:55:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
>>
>> I don't know what are you reading in my response, but I definitely
>> did
>> not propose anything like "noone wants people that are ready to do
>> one
>> thing in a year".
>>
>> Vit
>>
>>
>>
>> Dne 6.11.2012 09:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
>>> Where is the community spirit? What went wrong with fedora
>>> community? Why on earth do you people insist on tracking people
>>> activity and not try detecting unmaintained packages?
>>> Detecting unmaintained packages is even easier and has clearer
>>> metrics.
>>>
>>> Really, why noone wants people that are ready to do one thing in a
>>> year? Are many people here feeling superior than the rest of the
>>> world and think there is no need for further contributions and
>>> they can do everything alone ? I'm starting to be really worried
>>> for the path Fedora is going.
>>>
>>> Alexander Kurtakov
>>> Red Hat Eclipse team
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch at redhat.com>
>>>> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:28:11 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
>>>>
>>>> Dne 5.11.2012 10:22, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a):
>>>>> On 11/02/2012 06:57 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/02/2012 04:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:44:06 +0000
>>>>>>> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>>>>>> =?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?=
>>>>>>>>> <johannbg at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +0000, "JÃ³hann B.
>>>>>>>>>>> GuÃ°mundsson" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dead/un-maintained packages need to be removed/reassigned
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> very *beginning* of an new development cycle so feature
>>>>>>>>>>>> owners
>>>>>>>>>>>> and others working in the community are dealing with
>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> actively maintained packages.
>>>>>>>>> How exactly are you going to force maintainers who go missing
>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>> so at a prescheduled time?  Real life is seldom that
>>>>>>>>> convenient.
>>>>>>>> If at this point we dont have any process that can actively
>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>> if a
>>>>>>>> maintainer is present and active within the project then we
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> bigger fish to fry then the feature process...
>>>>>>> If we have problem A and problem B, can't we work on both at
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> time? :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seriously it should not be anymore complex than monitoring
>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>> login
>>>>>>>> into the relevant infrastructure pieces to determine if the
>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>> maintainer is active or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bash script + a cron job should suffice to achieve just that.
>>>>>>> It's not at all that simple, I'm afraid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How long since last activity do you consider someone 'inactive'
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if the packages that maintain simply don't need any
>>>>>>> changes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if they are on vacation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if they are active on package A, but not doing something
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> package B that you wish they would?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've long wanted to revamp our process.
>>>>>>> I welcome concrete proposals to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely if an individual has not logged into for several months
>>>>>> into our
>>>>>> infrastructure he must be inactive no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bash script + a cron job that monitors login should suffice to
>>>>>> check and
>>>>>> even email him asking him to confirm if he is active encase he
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> a low
>>>>>> maintenance component and only logs in when something is filed
>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JBG
>>>>> No, he can own only one package and be an upstream of the
>>>>> package,
>>>>> therefore he will login only for update of the package.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are using your use-case for everyone. If you insist on
>>>>> automatic
>>>>> process, then the metric should work with more data.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcela
>>>> Requiring action every 6 months, such as pressing button "Yes, I
>>>> am
>>>> still alive and kicking" in FAS after you are nagged by email,
>>>> would
>>>> be
>>>> acceptable annoyance even for such package maintainers, wouldn't
>>>> be?
>>>>
>>>> And there is such script, which is checking user activity on
>>>> several
>>>> places: https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-active-user
>>>>
>>>> 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

-- 
Marcela Mašláňová
BaseOS team Brno