librsync orphaned

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 17:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> Thorsten Leemhuis schrieb:
> > Gianluca Sforna schrieb:
> >> On 9/19/06, Robert Scheck <fedora-extras-list.listman at linuxnetz.de> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> >>>> I think you just have to  follow the guidelines here:
> >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/AWOL_Maintainers
> >>> why just wait another three weeks (!) when the maintainer already had three
> >>> weeks time after the initial reminder for the mass rebuild?
> >> Because rules are rules?
> > 
> > IMHO: No. No. No.
> > 
> > Getting stuff done is the most important thing. Rules help organizing
> > "getting stuff done" when a large number of people work together. But
> > let's not stick to them blindly just because there are rules. We should
> > consider most of our rules (not all!) more as guidelines IMHO and we
> > should adjust them quickly if needed.
> > 
> >>> Original maintainer didn't build the package until now, so I really would
> >>> like to take it soon. I talked with Thorsten resulting in when there's no
> >>> real complaining by the folks here, taking should work...
> >> If someone from the upper spheres (a.k.a. Thorsten) agrees with you
> >> short-circuiting the policy, that's fine also for me.
> > 
> > Well, we didn't talk about this case explicit in FESCo IIRC. But my 2
> > cents on the whole issue:
> > 
> > A kind of AWOL process indirectly was started when the mass rebuild was
> > announced (that was more then three weeks ago). If maintainers didn't
> > showe up to rebuild their stuff -> packages considered mostly orphaned
> > (at least *if* the packager didn't rebuild one of his packages and seems
> > to be AWOL by common sense -- e.g. no other commits in the past weeks,
> > no posts on this mailing list and stuff like that). Other people should
> > be able to take over the packages quickly now in time to get the tree in
> > shape before FC6. E.g. announce it in the wiki and on the list that you
> > want to take over a package, wait two or three days, recheck if packager
> > is still AWOL, take it over.
> 
> s/take it over/& as comaintainer for some weeks before you take it over
> completely/
> 
> > If the packager shows up again in the next
> > weeks -> give him his package back.
> > 
> > Just to be sure: That just my opinion. But I'd say if the other
> > FESCo-Members agree with this or a slightly adjusted variant of above
> > scheme let's just start using it.
And how about taking further consequences? I wouldn't find revoking
accounts to be a fault to people going AWOL -- but that's just my
opinion.

Ralf