On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:28:42PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> I think we should add some policy to address those unmaintained >> packages, > There is the non-responsive maintainer policy already.
That policy isn't the easiest one to follow though. I understand that taking someones packages away should never be easy but maybe we could develop some metrics for the awolness of a maintainer and use that to possibly speed up the process. I know that seth worked on something similar based on commit frequency. What I could think of is: * Look at the FAS activity If a maintainer has multiple request for commit rights to his package which have not been answered in a long time that would increase his awolness counter. (This would mean that we need to encourage people to actually deny requests that they don't want to approve - currently it seems to be accepted that denying a request is rude and the more polite way to not approve a commit request is to just ignore it). * Check if he actually has a current certificate to interface with koji * Look at koji activity If a maintainer hasn't done any build in koji for three months or more that would increase his awolness counter. The awolness-counter would only be looked at when someone thinks about starting the awol procedure and it could be used to speed up the process - maybe get an non-responsive Maintainer procedure done in one week instead of four or five. I know that there is the "Fast Track procedure" but that is for when "it may be needed to reassign a package quickly". When I was bit by gdal being in FTBFS for too long (and with it merkaartor which I maintain) I commented on the bugs and waited a while. When that didn't do anything I email Christian and also started work on a fixed package which rsc then built for rawhide using his provenpackager powers. I could have stopped there (and I nearly had done that) without starting the policy procedure - just because the process requires the one interested in getting things fix to do five or six things each a week apart. And looking at the number of "awaitaing review" maintainers there have been a few people before me who wanted to help get things fixed ... > It can't be repeated often enough: We need maintainers for each and every > package in the collection. To have packages and bug reports assigned to an > inactive person A with provenpackager B doing random upgrades from time to > time is a broken system. B ought to become the maintainer instead. And C > and D and E in the community also ought to consider joining the package's > team of maintainers, too. I agree. But we also need to make it easier for people to do so - if you look at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gdal (which is one of rezsos packages), it has 6 users with "Awaiting Review" on commit rights. It's not that people don't want to help out but we're making it too hard for them to do so. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
