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

Re: Simplify non-responsive maintainers policy Part 2

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:10:22AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> * Should we expedite these requests in the future if the email address for
>   the maintainer is no longer in existence?

Yes, please. If the mail address of a maintainers do not work anymore,
then their packages should be orphaned, so that others can maintain
them. If the mail address does not work, then all bug report
notifications would get lost and also communication attempts using the
package-owner aliases. Therefore it should be made sure there is always
someone caring about these messages for each package.

> * Should we formalize the unwritten policy for Red Hat maintainers who leave
>   the company and don't want to maintain their packages anymore?

Yes, unwritten policies are always bad.

>   * Do we need sanity checks to be sure maintainers who do want to keep
>     their packages do so?

What kind of checks do you mean? If maintainers want to keep their
packages, they can just change the owner of the package to their new
private account before leaving Red Hat.

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

Does it need to be different than the currently unwritted Red Hat
policy? If not, then it could just be the same policy Red Hat can be
used as an example, if needed.


Attachment: pgpCuTCQ4xT6l.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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