Simplify non-responsive maintainers policy Part 2

[Lyos Gemini Norezel]

On 10/21/2009 02:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 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
>    

Why not just require a secondary email address?

This would solve most of the problems... no?

Lyos Gemini Norezel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Lyos_GeminiNorezel.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 428 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20091021/f0497f46/attachment.vcf>