[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Self-assessment of the quality of the maintenance work


On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:19:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The basic idea is quite simple, we want to ensure that each package is
> maintained as well as possible and for this we need to ensure that
> it has one or more active maintainer(s). Hence every X months, each
> 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
> changed):
> - 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

I like the general idea, here are a few points/questions:

Have a procedure to not receive the mail in the future (perhaps making it
possible to (manually, via email?) re-enable at some later time)

> 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.

How long is the time span after the maintainer enters MIA? Perhaps after X
unanswered mails?

Also, it would help to clarify that "enters the MIA process" is not the same as
"the maintainer is MIA" which might be confusing. 

Filippo Giunchedi - http://esaurito.net
PGP key: 0x6B79D401
random quote follows:

Endian little hate we
-- Anonymous (?)

Reply to: