On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 18:51 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15 2025 at 01:19:10 AM +02:00:00, Fabio Valentini > <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The non-responsive maintainer process requires that the maintainer > > is > > *entirely unresponsive*, > > which is a much higher bar than for this proposed, less- > > consequential > > process. > > If the maintainer is not unresponsive, why can't you just ask the > maintainer for commit access...? > To paraphrase Princess Bride, there are some cases where maintainers are "mostly unresponsive" - just responsive enough to abort the non- responsive process. There are some that never add co-maintainers - so this is hopefully a small step in establishing the norm that maintainers should not have an 'exclusive ownership' mentality but should welcome sharing the burden. Single points of failure are bad. Best regards, -- _o) Michel Lind _( ) identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 README: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Salimma#README
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
