[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: Pending ACLs
From: Helio Chissini de Castro <helio () kde ! org>
Date: 2016-08-10 11:33:29
Message-ID: CAKPiqoEjoGNTDvwtx-TUqQhMoJ1_tUZnPXpznZvzJnOjnGfGRQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
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.
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">First of \
all sorry if i looks like rude on my answers, was not the intention.<br></div><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:34 PM, \
Dennis Gilmore <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dennis@ausil.us" \
target="_blank">dennis@ausil.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Monday, August 8, 2016 10:36:11 AM CDT Helio \
Chissini de Castro wrote:<br> > Not works.<br>
<br>
I do not understand what does not work<br>
<br>
> You need then talk with the requester and then decide to deny or not.<br>
> And if he tries again, do the process again.<br>
> What you can' t do is letting anyone waiting or making the package \
hostage.<br> Sometimes talking does not get anywhere and you reach an impase and you \
should<br> just leave the acls be pending. The package is not held hostage in \
anyway<br> shape or form. I honestly think you are attacking this from the wrong \
angle.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I know, but still, i strongly believe that \
if this deadlock situation happens, then i think</div><div>is ok to deny it with a \
polite reasoning that we're not ready to agree on rights over the \
package.</div><div>We can change our mind later, or even the requester decides not \
going further, but it's life.</div><div>We just can't let things hanging. \
</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px \
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> > About \
the notifications, yes, everyone get notifications if set your email<br> > \
properly or use @fedoraproject, and is working well as delivering.<br> > So \
increase the amount of notifications or do it in public lists will not<br> > fix \
the issue that is really is, the package<br> > owner. Would even piss of more the \
maintainers or other users ( in case of<br> > public )<br>
not sure what this is dirrected at<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is just \
because people complaining that we need improve the package acls notification, but \
more notifications </div><div>would not solve the issue, would just be \
"more"</div><div>I can be wrong on that and something really was not \
efficient, but i personally would not like to </div><div>have more and more regular \
notifications beyond the first one.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> ><br>
> If he decide to ignore or just not reading, then all efforts to " \
increase"<br> > or " improve" notifications system is useless.<br>
><br>
> Packages should have at least two lead owners and one group that can take<br>
> equal decisions over it.<br>
why? please give some reasoning<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The reasoning \
on have two maintainers is, unless we have someone paid for maintaining the packages, \
the reality is that we're <br></div><div>community bounded. And sometime the so \
called "life" will take our free time for do this things, or any other \
reasoning that could</div><div>prevent us to get active more often.</div><div>With \
two persons, would be easy to avoid a package became hostage in general and then have \
all the unresponsive maintainers requests</div><div>we've been seen often. \
</div><div><br></div><div>But then, the two can disappear as well, so that's \
comes from the groups.</div><div>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 <br></div><div>time the crew, and never been a hostage package for a \
single point of contact. </div><div>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 </div><div>are effectively a new admin to the packages, granted as is \
in the group and we trusted to be working with us.</div><div> \
</div></div></div></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic