On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Peter Bonivart <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Peter FELECAN <[email protected]> wrote: >> Maybe "abusive" is a little bit brutal. In fact the word is exactly >> that: "brutal"; brutal to take ownership of other maintainers packages >> (this is what you wrote), to convert them to gar (why?) and to say that >> now they can take them back, and that without me remembering any prior >> discussion. If I'm wrong I'll be corrected. > > They haven't answered bugs filed January 31st, how long do you think > it is appropriate to wait before taking over a package?
Them not having answered bugs on the bugtracking list, does not make it okay to skip attempting to contact them directly. > So, to sum up, we contacted everyone in an official way and we're > offering everyone to keep ownership of their packages. It does not sound like you have fully "contacted everyone". Peter F would seem to be proof of that. > Note that we > have not "taken" ownership of anything since nothing has been released > yet. It's to avoid "taking" ownership from maintainers who are active > and want to keep their packages I'm trying to contact them this way > too. When you wish to take over a package, emailing the general maintainers list, is not an acceptible as "attempting to contact the maintainer" either. It's fine as a first attempt, for a multi-package effort. But it does not count as, "well i attempted to contact them and didnt get a reply". _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
