Hi, I’m proposing a QUIP [0] for governing how the Qt Project deals with inactive maintainers and/or approvers.
The Qt Governance Model covers revokal of status as consequence of “extreme circumstances”. However, it has become apparent that there may be less extreme circumstances where the situation may yet call for revokal of status. In particular, we see long periods of inactivity (years, in some cases), or that the contact details we have for certain contributors no longer work. Taking on the responsibility of being an approver or maintainer in the Qt Project does come with a certain responsibility, and requires that one spend a certain amount of time. We all know circumstances may abruptly change in unforeseen ways, and there shouldn’t be a need for a vote of no confidence or something similar to deal with a situation where a previously highly active and valuable contributor becomes inactive (for whatever reason). This hurts the Maintainer role more than the Approver role, clearly. While at it, we might therefore want to consider (automatic?) appointment of a new maintainer, or formalize how the project may officially admit that parts of the code is, indeed, without an active maintainer. //! Paul [0] - https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/meta/quips/+/319248 _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
