On 05/14/2013 05:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:13:54 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johan...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/14/2013 01:51 PM, Simone Caronni wrote:
I have a question about the unresponsive mantainer policy [1].
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...
What really is needed here is to drop the user ownership module
altogether and allow every contribute access to every component or
use group ownership model on components instead followed by an email
address component@fedoraproject which is the components email address
and is stored in a imap folder.
There's a number of problems with 'free for all' model. Mostly around
communication.
pkgdb2 is being worked on that does some good toward teams/groups of
maintainers for a package (there's no 'owner' anymore, just a 'initial
bugzilla contact'). I'll let the folks working on that speak to that
tho.
I have no idea what you mean by imap folder here.
Components get's their own email address <component>-maint@
<mailto:systemd-ma...@redhat.com>fedoraproject.org followed by
components being always assigned to that email address.
Each "mail" the component receives is stored in the components "imap
folder" which contributors maintaining the component subscribed ( and
anyone else for that matter ( like users that usually CC themselves on
components ) that is interested in that mail ) can subscribe to.
Contributes could easily be added or allowed to add themselves to
components group and subscribed to the components imap folder in the
process which yields far more and faster access to start participate
and contributing then the current implemented model does.
Do you mean 'initialcc' on bugs? or ?
Atleast you would not have to run around half the internet chasing
the maintainer just to try to see if he's active or not and if you
can fix or generally start working on the component he's allegedly
supposed to be maintaining
Why not?
Why not what?
Do you get paid for or do you have endless time to spend hunting people
down?
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
any.
My plea what plea I asked Fesco to give this a serious thought about
this and they did not.
From my point of view it is as unlikely to happen as you with your
playbook idea or Tom with his "improving the fedora user experience with
design driven methodology" which is just totally backwards from my pov.
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 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.
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...
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.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
