[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    Re: Fw: Re: Removing active maintainers
From:       Austin English <austinenglish () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-06-30 15:28:06
Message-ID: b6bb06270906300828y6d539f5bo467f4893da61e97a () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM, James
Mckenzie<jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Sent to Rosanne only, meant to send it to the list as a comment to this thread.
> 
> James McKenzie
> 
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> > From: James Mckenzie <jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net>
> > Sent: Jun 29, 2009 6:36 PM
> > To: Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio@earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Re: Removing active maintainers
> > 
> > Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Removing active maintainers
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:56:23 +0200
> > > Remco <remco47@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Rosanne DiMesio<dimesio@earthlink.net> \
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > That would still leave the test results sitting there unprocessed for \
> > > > > weeks, which leaves a pretty bad impression on the users who submitted \
> > > > > them. Test results for apps without maintainers get processed by the admins \
> > > > > within 24 hours.
> > > > 
> > > > How about mailing admins after 24 hours? Maintainers are useful to
> > > > offload tasks of admins. If they are away for a while, admins just get
> > > > the mail as if there were no maintainer. If you have to remove a
> > > > maintainer every time he can't respond in 24 hours, you won't have
> > > > many left after a while.
> > > > 
> > > > Remco
> > > 
> > > Nobody's suggesting a 24 hour time limit for maintainers.
> > > 
> > > As for emailing the admins, I know I turned off emails from the AppDB to avoid \
> > > having my mailbox overwhelmed with hundreds of useless notices every day, and I \
> > > doubt I'm the only one who did this. \
> > > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14755 needs to be fixed first for any \
> > > solution that involves emailing admins to be viable.
> > 
> > I see several good ideas here:
> > 
> > 1.  Maintainers should be able to mark themselves as not available.  No reason \
> > should be required. 2.  Admins should have the ability to suspend a maintainer \
> > for non-response.  There are several reasons for not responding and most of them \
> > would be considered an emergency. 3.  Any maintainer who fails, after three \
> > suspensions, to properly carry out the functions of being a maintainer, should be \
> > banned for a specific period of time, increases to a complete ban. 4.  What \
> > maintainers have to do to maintain their status should be posted on the \
> > Maintainers page when you sign up and a reminder message every 90 days or so \
> > should be sent out to keep maintainers honest. 5.  Maintainers should be given \
> > the option of gracefully resigning when they no longer can perform the duties of \
> > their position.

A lot of these suggestions are overly complex and require a lot of
modification to the AppDB. There's only one person really working on
it (thanks Alexander!), but keep in mind that while it's easy to
suggest lots of complex changes to the AppDB, it only matters if
someone is willing to take the time to do that work.

TL;DR AppDB patches needed.

-- 
-Austin


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]