On Feb 24, 2006, at 11:03 PM, Tim Cross wrote: > Erik Enge writes: >> On 2/24/06, Nikodemus Siivola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Compromise at three months? >> >> I'm going to have to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] to see what they think. They >> are >> afterall the ones affected by this. >> >>> Month can easily happen if the person is filtering project/lisp mail >>> to a separate account or folder and is taking a hiatus, is on an >>> extended vacation, or whatever. >> >> Perhaps. I think a reasonable approach might be: >> >> - day 1: email [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> and say you will be taking over the project in 30 >> days if >> noone objects >> - day 10: reminder >> - day 20: reminder >> - day 30: reminder >> - day 31: clnet admin replies with confirmation of new ownership >> >> If, in that time, noone on the -devel list nor the owner replies the >> project is either abondoned or it needs a new owner anyways, IMHO of >> course. >> >> I may even toss in there to add to the latest news (ie RSS ie planet >> lisp) that takeover procedures have been initiated for that project. >> >>> ...then again, if the policy is to give back the ownership to the >>> original person, I don't see any great harm in being more impatient >>> and leaving it at one month. >> >> That's a great point. I think probably the major motivation here is >> to be able to apply patches and put out new releases. >> > > Having worked on projects in the past, I would argue 1 month is not > long enough. I've oftne had life get in the way and been forced to put > projects I'm working on in the background for a couple of months or > I've been slowly working on a project in the background, but have not > made an update for a few months etc. 4 weeks can pass very quickly > when your busy with work or other projects (think about how long CL > gardners has been in existance already! It certainly doesn't seem that > long!).
My understanding was folks were proposing a one-month time limit for the project maintainer of record to *respond* to the email, not necessarily that folks have to check in something every month. The point is, as I understand it, that if I see a project that I'd like to submit patches to and it doesn't have any obvious activity going on, I drop a note to the c-l.net guys and ask them to ping the current maintainer. If the maintainer replies with, "Yes, I'm alive and still care about the project" then they get to keep it. It's only if there's *no* response for a month that the keys to their project might be given away to someone who's showing more interest in it. And the original maintainer can always show up later and say, "Hey, I was out of the country for a year and away from email, what happened?!" and get their project back in the state it was in when they left. Of course if in that year the new owner has made a bunch of changes they may want to fork. Which could happen now; the new policy seems aimed at preventing needless forks, mostly in the interest of not confusing would-be users of these libs. -Peter -- Peter Seibel * [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/ Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
