[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Simplify non-responsive maintainers policy Part 2


On 21.10.2009 20:10, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
* 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?

I don't think so: in past it was always clear who wants to maintain the package further (at least because the maintainer changed his contact from @redhat.com to some private address).

   * Do we want something more generic that covers other compaines that pay
     their employees to package for Fedora?

I'd rather set now this policy for RH employees (which will cover 99 % of cases) than discuss anything like secondary mail addresses and various situations which can raise up with other companies for the next month. The RH environment is clear to us and easy for manage to you (I mean there are no actual problems with handling this within RH), am I right?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]