Re: MIA Maintainer Process Proposal
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 02:21:46PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Your times are completely absurd (no offense intended). Plus, I think
> you forgot that if a maintainer emails <some place official> saying "I
> am going on a sabatical, I will be out for 6 months" they should get
> some leeway.
I just put some numbers in. I expected others to have other ideas
on what a reasonable amount of time would be.
> IMO, 8 months of innactivity, without notice from the maintainer, or any
> reply upon emailing them for 4 weeks, should go into an "innactive"
> state. After that, they get reavaluated in 6 months. If still no reply,
> then they are considered gone. If they reply during the innactivity and
> respond in the positive that they had <insert excuse> issue, and plan to
> continue working, gpg signed, then they get reactivated. I don't think
> we should be picky about their excuse. Maybe they just didn't feel up to
> the task, or maybe they lie to us because the real excuse is too
> embarassing. Either way, the fact that they respond is good enough for
> me...and I would accept their account being reactivated.
I don't think we should be picky about the reason they were unavailable
either. I do think it is reasonable for them to respond to a "hi
are you still interested in working on Debian" message within a month
(this is after the no uploads/emails/updates to status time out).
Vacations and such also need to be considered as active time if the
developer takes the time to update the LDAP data or whatever is
listed as the right thing to do.
> This may not be perfect, but I think the general approach is good, and
> some comments could probably fine tune the specifics (and maybe point
> out anything I missed).
Thanks, that's why I posted it here.
Amateur Radio: KB8PYMi mobile/portable 9 (somewhere in 9 land)
Debian Linux Developer (as time and family permit)
Human? (the jury is still out on this one)
GPG Fingerprint: 8577 CFA7 B984 8E58 0D00 79B6 CFDA 9D82 06A7 376E