Policy for non-responsive maintainers
anish at sugarlabs.org
Thu Jan 10 14:04:33 EST 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thursday 10 January 2013 01:52 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
>> Is this a good time to re-spin the discussion? Considering that it keeps
>> coming up:
> Let's get a policy defined and a means of execution. (On the ASLO
> front, there are many of us who can help with the transfer of
> management. Gitorious is another story...
>> <lionaneesh-andro> bernie: Could you help me takeover maintainership
of an inactive activity?
>> <bernie> lionaneesh-andro: ask alsroot, he maintains aslo
>> * alsroot only maintains aslo, dirakx was taking care about aslo content
>> <bernie> lionaneesh-andro: gonzalo_odiard and garycmartin are the
activity team coordinators.
>> <bernie> lionaneesh-andro: there's currently no written process for
taking over an unmaintained activity. maybe ask them for permission first?
Unless the original maintainer wants out, I'd call it co-maintainership
rather than takeover-of-maintainership.
I guess one version could be:
* Request the original maintainer for co-maintainership
* Wait for X amount of time
* If he responds, great! - follow that
** If you don't agree with his response, you are free to branch off your
own spin of the activity
* If he doesn't respond, add the Requester as a co-maintainer.
** ASLO: add as author
** GIT: tag the current snapshot of the code (maybe clone or create a
branch), and give commit access on mainline.
>> <bernie> lionaneesh-andro: please, write to sugar-devel@ and cc me,
alsroot, gonzalo and gary.
>> <lionaneesh-andro> bernie: okay. Thanks.
>> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 19:04 -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 14:27 -0300, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>>> If you are not in a hurry to get this discussed,
>>>> I propose wait until we finish we 0.98 (one month aprox)
>>>> Right now, all the people we want be involved in this discussion,
>>>> are too busy (me too).
>>> There's no particular hurry.
>>> Actually, I brought up this particular issue just to make a more general
>>> point: we should codify our existing practices in the wiki for the
>>> benefit of new and existing contributors. Being swamped by an unclear
>>> process can be quite frustrating for a volunteer who just wants to get
>>> things done.
>>>> About the summer young hackaton in Uruguay, I take your word.
>>> Glad to help, although it's unlikely that I'll be able to join in.
>> _ // Bernie Innocenti
>> \X/ http://codewiz.org
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Devel