First of all sorry if i looks like rude on my answers, was not the intention.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis@ausil.us> wrote:

On Monday, August 8, 2016 10:36:11 AM CDT Helio Chissini de Castro wrote:
> Not works.

I do not understand what does not work

> You need then talk with the requester and then decide to deny or not.
> And if he tries again, do the process again.
> What you can' t do is letting anyone waiting or making the package hostage.
Sometimes talking does not get anywhere and you reach an impase and you should
just leave the acls be pending. The package is not held hostage in anyway
shape or form. I honestly think you are attacking this from the wrong angle.

I know, but still, i strongly believe that if this deadlock situation happens, then i think

is ok to deny it with a polite reasoning that we're not ready to agree on rights over the package.

We can change our mind later, or even the requester decides not going further, but it's life.

We just can't let things hanging.

> About the notifications, yes, everyone get notifications if set your email
> properly or use @fedoraproject, and is working well as delivering.
> So increase the amount of notifications or do it in public lists will not
> fix the issue that is really is, the package
> owner. Would even piss of more the maintainers or other users ( in case of
> public )
not sure what this is dirrected at

Is just because people complaining that we need improve the package acls notification, but more notifications

would not solve the issue, would just be "more"

I can be wrong on that and something really was not efficient, but i personally would not like to

have more and more regular notifications beyond the first one.

>
> If he decide to ignore or just not reading, then all efforts to " increase"
> or " improve" notifications system is useless.
>
> Packages should have at least two lead owners and one group that can take
> equal decisions over it.
why? please give some reasoning

The reasoning on have two maintainers is, unless we have someone paid for maintaining the packages, the reality is that we're

community bounded. And sometime the so called "life" will take our free time for do this things, or any other reasoning that could

prevent us to get active more often.

With two persons, would be easy to avoid a package became hostage in general and then have all the unresponsive maintainers requests

we've been seen often.

But then, the two can disappear as well, so that's comes from the groups.

The group is the more important thing, since give powers over a package with some trusted people, not specific one, so it can be moving from time to

time the crew, and never been a hostage package for a single point of contact.

KDE and Qt packages are this way, they are not my or any other responsibility alone, but to @kdesig group, and any guys that enters in this group

are effectively a new admin to the packages, granted as is in the group and we trusted to be working with us.