On Monday, 2 March 2020 12:47:35 UTC, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > > > On Monday, 2 March 2020 12:44:37 UTC, Baptiste Mathus wrote: >> >> >> >> Le lun. 2 mars 2020 à 13:40, Stephen Connolly <scon...@cloudbees.com> a >> écrit : >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, 2 March 2020 11:19:07 UTC, Daniel Beck wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:02 PM Stephen Connolly < >>>> stephen.a...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If all maintainers of a plugin are emeritus and someone wants to claim >>>>> ownership then the emeritus maintainers can short-circuit the transfer of >>>>> ownership rather than having to wait out the full period. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Seems like this can trivially be accomplished by amending the usual >>>> adoption process (2 week timeout) to special-case "I used to maintain >>>> this". We've actually done that already in the past, when the last release >>>> pre-dated the cutoff date I used to initialize the permission files: The >>>> requester told us they maintained the plugin back 2012, they'd like to get >>>> permissions back. Nobody else was around to tell us "no" (i.e. no other >>>> co-maintainers recorded), so it was just done. >>>> >>>> My main question here is how this would impact plugins with active >>>> maintainers. If you remove yourself from credentials plugin, it is >>>> currently considered to be maintained jointly by seven people. Do you >>>> expect to get permissions back without any approval from any of them, if >>>> you decide to? >>>> >>> >>> If there are active maintainers, they can veto within a fixed period of >>> time (say 72h or 1 week or whatever people want), but I think it would have >>> to be a veto not an approval. >>> >> >> Overall +1 with a strong concern from my side on the 'new and active >> maintainers' respect aspect. >> >> I think this is fine to move into a fast-forwardable veto system, however >> only taking in account a duration. >> E.g. such "emeritus" maintainers would be able to get access back in a >> fast-track way only if they can show an activity in the last 12 months. >> IOW I do not think someone who was not active in the last, say, 2 years >> should be able to get access back in less than the default timeout of 2 >> weeks. >> > > If that is scoped to actively maintained plugins, fine. >
Similarly, if I come back in 2 years and see that Bob who adopted the foobar plugin from me has done nothing with it in the past year... should I need to wait for bob's timeout of two weeks to pick up the plugin? For sure if Bob is maintaining the plugin actively and has commits etc then Bob should be respected... but if Bob is don;t nothing and hasn't moved himself to Emeritus, should he be entitled to block me from picking the plugin back up?\ > If the plugin is unmaintained an an emeritus maintainer steps up, they > should be back in action as soon as they request it IMHO > > >> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to jenkin...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/cb6de16c-7621-4244-a373-12dbbb62cd4c%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/cb6de16c-7621-4244-a373-12dbbb62cd4c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/fd1e13c4-27c3-4672-b7f7-e6c03e42dece%40googlegroups.com.
