On 10/21/2009 02:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I've talked to FESCo people on IRC and after some discussion I've gone aheadand reassigned ownership. Since people seem to like this, if you don't want to maintain and fix this package, please go through the orphan process rather than just retiring it.I went ahead and made the change this time for two reasons: 1) The email address for the current maintainer is not valid. 2) We have in the past had an unwritten policy about reassigning packages between a former Red Hat maintainer and a new Red Hat maintainer when the maintainer leaves the company and is no longer interested in Fedora. However, it was pointed out that this does tread in the area of the fast-track for non-responsive maintainers decided on in this FESCo ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/251 (not yet written up in the wiki. See https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/261 for getting policies written up quicker) So let's discuss -- * Should we expedite these requests in the future if the email address for the maintainer is no longer in existence? * Should we formalize the unwritten policy for Red Hat maintainers who leave the company and don't want to maintain their packages anymore? * Do we need sanity checks to be sure maintainers who do want to keep their packages do so? * Do we want something more generic that covers other compaines that pay their employees to package for Fedora? -Toshio
Why not just require a secondary email address? This would solve most of the problems... no? Lyos Gemini Norezel
<<attachment: Lyos_GeminiNorezel.vcf>>
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
