No answer to easy bug policy

[Lyos Gemini Norezel]

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With Rahul, we prepared a new pollicy which aim is to force maintainers
> to answer to easy fix bugs or orphan packages if they fail to do so in a
> one month delay. It may look a bit rude, but hopefully it will help
> spreading co-maintainership and quicker bugfixes. It is at
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenance
>
> In my opinion it should be added to the non responsive policy at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers
> I paste it here. Please comment. It should be proposed to FESCo after
> discussion here.
>
>
>
>
> = No answer to easy bug policy =
>
> == The Problem ==
>
> There are several occasions where the individual maintainers are still
> active and working on some software packages while not fixing trivial
> bugs on other software packages. If this occurs over a long period of
> time, the maintainers should seek out co-maintainers or just be
> orphaning the software packages they are not interested in. If it does
> happen for a shorter periods, others can act as a buffer to avoid the
> problem lingering for our users. Other experienced and trusted package
> maintainers, developers or others in the community have offered a
> specific simple solution to the problem in terms of patches or
> recommendations that translate into straight forward solutions.
> Maintainers are wary of stepping on each other's toes and clear
> guidelines helps is setting expectations 
>
> == The solution ==
>
> When the situation described above happens, somebody (called the
> reporter) can proceed with what is explained below. However, this 
> should only be done in one bug at a time for each maintainer, even if
> there are many such bugs for different or the same components.
> To enforce that, a blocker bug should be associated with the bug such
> that it is easy to see which maintainer is already concerned
> by the procedure.
>
> The reporter put the following comment in the bug:
>
> ---
>
> As per the 'No answer to easy bug' policy, please answer within 2 weeks
> whether
>
> * you allow others to fix this bug
>
> * you are not interested enough in that package to really keep on
> * maintaining it by yourself, and are looking for a co-maintainer or 
> to orphan the package
>
> If you don't answer after 2 weeks and one remainder lasting also at
> least 2 week the package will be orphaned according to the policy stated
> at <link>
>
> ---
>
> - The reporter blocks a blocker bug, such that before following the
>   procedure another reporter can check that the packager hasn't have a
> similar procedure already begun.
>
> - The blocker bug is left for at least 1 month, even if the maintainer
>   answered, such that only one procedure per month can be engaged.
>
>
> The idea is to avoid having people be able to bother maintainers more
> than needed by having only one procedure opened at a time, while forcing
> uninterested maintainers to orphan their packages.
>
> == References ==
>  
> * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/EncourageComaintainership
> * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToModifyWhichPackages
> * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers#Outline
>
>
>
> --
> Pat
>
>   

I'm no developer (not since the 6502 ASM days at any rate), but it seems 
to me that this may cause some contention. I hate bureaucracy in all 
it's forms, but I can see I slightly modified version of this being put 
into use, PROVIDED the majority of developers concerned (ie., at least 
70%) agree to be bound by such rules. Otherwise, you risk losing alot of 
people.

At any rate, the modification I propose is actually fairly simple. It 
simply makes an exception to a particular type of case. There are 
instances where the bug itself may be easy to fix, and there may even be 
a patch available, but solving that particular bug may cause bugs in 
other (possibly more vital) programs or libraries.

I'm merely suggesting an exception for this particular case, on the off 
chance you'd have developers being forcefully removed because of such 
bugs. And yes, I do know that such cases would be rare.

Lyos Gemini Norezel