On 10/11/20 6:29 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Many thx for you comments. Consider all the obvious spelling and grammatical > mistakes you pointed out fixed, I won't mention all of them in this reply to > keep things easier to follow. > > Am 09.10.20 um 19:37 schrieb Randy Dunlap: >> On 10/1/20 1:50 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >>> +wait a week at maximum (or just two days if it's something urgent) before >>> +sending a friendly reminder. If the maintainer is not responding in a >>> timely >>> +manner or not handing it appropriately, mention that you are considering to >>> +escalate the issue to a higher authority and do so if there is in the end >> >> and do so if there seems to be >> no way around this. >> >> although such a "threat" probably won't do much good. > > Hmmm, yeah, I guess did not find the right tone here. But I think this > situation needs to be mentioned in the text. And FWIW, something about it is > even in the old text: > > """ > If you suspect a maintainer is not responding to these types of bugs in a > timely manner (especially during a merge window), escalate the bug to LKML > and Linus Torvalds. > """" > > So how about this: > ``` > The 'issues of high priority' (see above for an explanation) are an exception > here: maintainers should address them as soon as possible; that's why you > should wait a week at maximum (or just two days if it's something urgent) > before sending a friendly reminder. > > Sometimes the maintainer might not be responding in a timely manner; other > times there might be disagreements, for example if an issue qualifies as > regression or not. In such cases raise your concerns on the mailing list and > ask others for public or private replies how to move on. If that fails, it > might be appropriate to escalate the issue to a higher authority. In case of > a WiFi driver that would be the wireless maintainers; if there are no higher > level maintainers or all else fails, it might be one of those rare situations > where it's okay to get Linus Torvalds involved. > ``` > > > Still not totally happy with it, but I better at least. Or what do other > think about it?
Thanks, it's better. -- ~Randy
