next FESCo meeting agenda.

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 11:13 +0200, 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.
> 
> No comment on that part?

I think the maintainer is being negligent in that situation.  It takes
little effort to simply comment a bug with an excuse as to why that
other package isn't being worked on.  And if that type of behavior
continues, then for all intents and purposes that particular package has
an AWOL maintainer.

It's up to the sponsor of that maintainer to either help educate and
correct the behavior, or re-evaluate whether or not that is acceptable
behavior from a maintainer.

josh