Re: Self-assessment of the quality of the maintenance work
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> On 2008-12-20, Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> maintainer receives a mail with a link to a web form where he'll have a
>>> list of all the packages that he maintains/co-maintains and for each
>>> package he has to answer several questions that explain his relationship
>>> with the package (the answer are preseeded with the values he selected
>>> the previous time so that he can quickly skim over it if nothing has
>>> - what kind of maintainer he is
>>> - active (responding quickly, forwarding bugs, ???)
>>> - passive (responds only to major problems)
>>> - backup (not doing anything unless solicited)
>>> - if the package needs an active maintainer or not (most perl modules are
>>> well maintained with a single "passive" maintainer)
>>> - if the package needs help from another volunteer
>>> We could integrate various heuristics/data in the process to help the
>>> maintainer recognize that he's (not) keeping up and that he needs help
>>> or maybe that he's no more "active" but only "passive".
>>> If the maintainer doesn't respond, he automatically enters the MIA
>>> process and the package is quickly marked as needing help/attention
>>> from someone else.
>> I'd rather spend my time on fixing my packages than on filling web forms
>> with bureaucratic bullshit.
> Thanks for your constructive comments… and the nice vocabulary.
> It might take some time the first time that you submit but it's good to
> step back a few seconds to think about the maintenance status of the
> packages that you maintain (do I need help? do I maintain it actively or
> would I let the package go if someone more involved in the upstream
> project showed up?). Later on the bureaucratic work takes a couple
> of seconds, not much more than the time you spent to write you nice reply.
I don't think sending active maintainers questionaires is very helpful.
Though I'm not a priori against such a self-assessment, I think it
should at least only be sent to people when needed (not in case of VAC,
not when clearly active on all packages, not when all packages are