Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

Tue Nov 6 13:07:09 UTC 2012

On 11/06/2012 01:56 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> So give me the permission [1] as well as the others who requested it
> before me.
>
> Apparently the current owner doesn't care. You can compare the version
> history in koji [2] and [3] and if he doesn't care about one package, it
> is reasonable to doubt that the other packages will be in better state.
>
> And please don't tell me about nonresponsive maintainer policy, if you
> want to speak about community and collaboration [4].
>
>
> Vit
>
>
> [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/rubygem-json
> [2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9017
> [3] https://rubygems.org/gems/json/versions
> [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620436
>
>
>
> Dne 6.11.2012 12:58, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a):
>> 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
>>
>>
>
Oh no, you are top posting again ;-)

Could you create fesco ticket for this package? I proposed usage of the 
script in Johann's ticket 
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/967#comment:7 Imho it might be 
better to give acl to more people, then only punish developers.

Marcela