next FESCo meeting agenda.

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 09:49 +0100, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > I also think that "a maintainer isn't answering their bugs, not answering 
> > rebuild requests, emails or the like" opens a bit too much for interpretation.
> 
> It also has a problem. I've been out of things for about 10 days, which
> means that I have an anjuta bug which is over 2 weeks old. I'm also
> waiting on an upstream response for a bug problem, so it's slow going.
> The bug is still being worked on, but hasn't been fixed.

Easy to indicate in a bug report, hence showing that you are not AWOL.

> 
> You also have the problem of folks being on holiday. It's not unusual in
> the UK for people to vanish for 2 - 3 weeks.

We have a vacation page in the wiki.  That should be checked first.

> 
> Some bugs are also much bigger than first thought. z88dk on 64 bit being
> one such example. It is still being worked on, but the problem is that
> the code generated isn't happy fully, so it's not in a state that I
> would want to see released.

Also easy to indicate in a bug report.

> 
> > In my opinion it should be only serious issues that allows AWOL procedure.
> > Like security bug, big usability bug, broken dependency, or a need to rebuild
> > 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.
> 
> The AWOL problem is not a trivial one. A while back, I posted something
> similar to Mike's proposal to the f-extras list - the main problem
> identified was that it is hard to fix time limits on things (though the
> thread may have been on orphaned packages).

Yes, fixed time limits are hard to do.  I had a situation a while ago
were 2 weeks would not have been enough, so I would suggest something a
bit longer.

josh