next FESCo meeting agenda.

[Michael J. Knox]

Patrice Dumas wrote:
>>> I also think that a maintainer should not be considered AWOL when he has
>>> shown some activity in a package or other packages even if he doesn't 
>>> respond to some bugs in a particular package. If he is still active in 
>>> other parts of fedora extras, maybe it could be the sponsor responsibility
>>> to try to come to an agreement.
>> This is troublesome. It would need a specific example to explain why a maintainer
>> _is active_ but doesn't respond to an issue with one of his packages which causes
>> other people to demand action.
> 
> Imagine that a maintainer is active on package foo but doesn't respond on
> issues about pakage bar. It is not clear, in the AWOL policy whether the
> AWOL procedure should be started or not. I believe it shouldn't, but instead
> his sponsor may be contacted, and the issue sorted out with his help, or
> escalated to FESCO as you say below.

The proposed AWOL policy states that the time line is 3 weeks. This is 
plenty of time for a FE package to make a comment.

If a FE package can not comment on a bug report for 3 weeks, then ignore 
the public take over request that is approved by FESCo... then we have a 
problem that is out side the scope of the proposed policy.

>>> against newer library version. I don't think it would be right to allow 
>>> people to bug maintainers for minor/wrong issues and then start the AWOL 
>>> procedure.
>> It's called "common sense". But it is not easy to define. What may be a minor
>> defect in your point of view, could be considered a serious defect by other
>> users or packagers.
> 
> In the current proposal, it isn't said that only serious defects qualify
> for launching the AWOL procedure. 

Define serious? Capture all possible definitions. What is serious to me 
may not be serious to you. As Michael said, common sense is required. As 
I have seen so far, the FE maitainers have plenty of this.

>> So, assuming that the AWOL procedure is not started too often, it would be
> 
> That's what I think should be avoided by providing enough guidelines.

This is *why* FESCo is required to approve the final step!

There are way too many "what if's" and "but then" to capture. Common 
sense is needed.

Thanks

Mihcael