https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/ is written with the negative case in mind, but if the maintainer actually does respond, the text doesn't say what should happen.
The question is: is it enough if the maintainer just responds "I am (still) here", or do we expect some kind of action on the bugs, when there are bugs open or other issues?
Would this get more responses on the devel list?
I don't think we need to involve fedora-devel. It's just an omission in the text. We need to figure out some rule that makes sense.
I think there is always going to be a gray area, unfortunately. If a maintainer is usually nonresponsive, but is still generally active, responds occasionally on some packages, and responds to the nonresponsive maintainer process—yet still under-maintains most of their packages and doesn’t eagerly accept co-maintainers—it’s hard to say what can or should be done. Still, perhaps it’s possible to clarify the process in a way that narrows the gray area a bit.
Isn't this covered by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/#exception-procedure ?
With no contradiction made to my last message, I assume we can close this.
Metadata Update from @sgallagh: - Issue close_status updated to: Invalid - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.