Simplify non-responsive maintainers policy Part 2

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:11:37AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Jim Parsons left Red Hat a little while back and the only contact
> details I have is his Red Hat email address, which is of course no
> longer valid. I've opened a bugzilla #530027 as per the unresponsive
> maintainer procedure, but I was hoping to be able to skip the section
> regarding sending of messages since there seems little point sending to
> an email address which I know (and which other Red Hat employees can
> easily verify) will not be answered.
> 
> Instead I've emailed the one other person who had access to that package
> and that has also gone unanswered (see the bugzilla).
> 
> There are a number of outstanding bugs filed against
> system-config-cluster (including the fact that it seems that it has not
> passed an initial review) which I've listed out in the bugzilla.
> 
> I would like to either fix (or preferably just remove) this package as
> it creates configs for GFS2 which are incorrect and is thus causing
> confusion to all who attempt to use it.
> 
> Therefore this is my formal request to become maintainer of this
> package,
> 
I've talked to FESCo people on IRC and after some discussion I've gone ahead
and 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20091021/a1b8ae7c/attachment.sig>