next FESCo meeting agenda.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:13:22 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:

> > This is why its required to post to fedora-extras@ and a FESCo member 
> > give approval.
> 
> Indeed, but I think that it should also be stated in the proposal. I propose
> something along (for the first point in Outline):
> 
> When Fedora Extras member sees that a maintainer isn't answering serious 
> bugs, in particular when there is a fix provided, and for the bugs related 
> to security, major usability issues (crashs), request for rebuild against 
> newer libs, and that the maintainer is not answering rebuild requests, 
> emails or the like, they need to file a bug against the package in bugzilla 
> asking for the maintainer to respond. 

Is all this really needed?

In case of security vulnerabilities, the Security Team should not need to
wait long for any response anyway.

And all the things you sum up have one thing in common already: a
_bugzilla ticket_ about an issue with a package. Creating a long list of
issues is not necessary. But the exceptions, when starting the AWOL
procedure would be exaggerated, are only a few.

A fellow contributor might want something else when opening a bugzilla
ticket, e.g. a coordinated API upgrade before next freeze. How long would
you wait for a response? It doesn't hurt to start an official procedure
early. The package maintainer might be missing actually, and it is
important to find out about that.