Policy for non-responsive maintainers
walter.bender at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 14:27:46 EST 2013
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Anish Mangal <anish at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 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.
That is pretty much what we had been discussing. The sticky bit is
that AFAIK, there is no easy way to transfer (or unilaterally add)
ownership to mainline on g.sl.o other than by running some scripts on
I'm in favor of a short window, a few weeks. Others argue for a longer
window. Re git, it is not a big deal, because of the ability to clone.
Bit more of an issue for ASLO, since those are the bits consumed by
our user community.
>>> <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
> - --
> Anish Mangal
> Sugar Labs
> -----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