Question about "what to do if mantainer is absent"
jwboyer at gmail.com
Tue May 14 18:46:02 UTC 2013
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/14/2013 05:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 +0000
>>> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The unresponsive maintainers policy is to be honest crap and to much
>>> in favor of the maintainer.
>>> Fesco allegedly was looking into it but you know...
>> Yeah, I sure do know... Fesco folks are busy and doing lots of things
>> in the areas they contribute to, so if people really want to move things
>> forward, perhaps they should work on some ideas themselves?
> Oh Fesco is only busy but the rest of the community is not omg let me not
> waste your holy time sir...
That isn't what he said. His point was "scratch your own itch" not
"we're busier than you". If you don't have time to do it yourself,
you can't immediately expect others to just do it for you.
>>> If efficiency was Fedora's strong suit FPC would have been dismantled
>>> by now...
>> This is unlikely to happen, so repeating your plea isn't likely to help
> My plea what plea I asked Fesco to give this a serious thought about this
> and they did not.
Unless I missed something, you asked this explicitly in the meeting
last week and then left before we answered:
"has fesco considered disassemble fpc and pick up ack/nack/patch
approach for guidelines changes proposal on the packaging list to make
that process more efficient? If not I suggest you look into it and
what benefits the fpc brings to the project over that approach"
To which we replied you should open a ticket. That hasn't been done
yet. Some of us expressed an initial resistance to doing anything
along those lines. Personally, I have absolutely no idea why you
asked the question or the reasons behind it so without further
information I'd be disinclined to do anything. That's what the ticket
> If Fesco can explain to me the benefits of having FPC and the overhead it
> follows vs proposed changes to the packaging guidelines to the packaging
The FPC should be able to explain this themselves. Have you asked them?
> list followed by an ack/nack/patch approach has I'm all ears I have only
> experience the downside of having it first hand and when I see a inefficient
> process in the project I try to improve and dropping FPC and adopting the
> previous mentioned model seems assured win win to me.
There's no such thing as an assured win.
> Heck the community did not have the faintest idea which tickets they even
> worked ( or did any work at all ) on until I literally request they adopted
> the fesco model so we atleast could get a faint idea what was going to be
> discussed on those meeting...
Sounds like working with them has paid off nicely. Maybe you should
do more of that.
> Let's just continue to cross finger hope that those that have been chosen
> <-- yeah that's right not elected but chosen bother to show up to do their
> due diligence and reach a quorum.
The elections are open, and the voting is not rigged. You can be
displeased all you like about who gets elected and what they choose
(or not choose) to look at, but that doesn't make those committees a
More information about the devel