On 29. 09. 21 13:49, Miro Hronฤok wrote:
On 26. 09. 21 21:20, Fabio Valentini wrote:
Should the @java-maint-sig group be removed from any packages it is
still associated with? Should it be dissolved, and members be removed?
Should the remaining ruins that used to be packages be orphaned?
Retired? Buried? Forgotten?
Since many have moved this discussion away from this question, let me please
bring back the main reason this was posted.
Since the @java-maint-sig group is esentially non-responsive, I suggest we do
the following:
1) We remove all BZ assignee overrides to @java-maint-sig. This is a must.
2) We remove access of @java-maint-sig from all packages.
3) We ask the members of the group if they want to admin the list/BZ account.
ย 3a) We give it to the volunteer.
ย 3b) We empty the group and cancel the BZ account/list if nobody shows up.
4) We *don't orphan the packages*, they have some "de jure" maintainers.
The packages that fail to install and/or build will eventually die out due to
the existing processes.
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2672
--
Miro Hronฤok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
