Becoming a co-maintainer. How? (proftpd)

[Ray Van Dolson]

This is specifically in regards to the 'proftpd' package maintained by
Matthias Saou.  Anyone know if he's around?

I'm interested in becoming a co-maintainer for this package.  I haven't
tried recently to contact Matthias (I will), but past attempts have not
been answered and quite a few proftpd bugs are sitting open[1] -- there
hasn't been an update to the package for a long time.  I don't
necessarily want to become the sole maintainer (although maybe), but
have the following questions I wasn't able to easily find the answers
to on the wiki:

  - How can I see who currently are maintainers and comaintainers for a
    package?
  - Is there a process to become a co-maintainer of a package when the
    primary maintainer is absent?
  - As a 'provenpackager' would it be acceptable for me to push a new
    release of proftpd if I have commit access even though I'm not
    officially a maintainer?

Thanks,
Ray

[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/bugs/proftpd

[Patrice Dumas]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:20:58AM -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>  This is specifically in regards to the 'proftpd' package
> maintained by
>  Matthias Saou.  Anyone know if he's around? 
I hope that he's still around... In any case he doesn't seems to be very 
active.
 
>    - How can I see who currently are maintainers and comaintainers for
> a
>      package? 
This one is easy, just go to 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/
and search for proftpd. Or directly use the package url explained
on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UsingPackagedb#What.27s_...

>    - Is there a process to become a co-maintainer of a package when
> the
>      primary maintainer is absent? 
If the primary maintainer is absent there is a policy:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMain...

>    - As a 'provenpackager' would it be acceptable for me to
> push a new
>      release of proftpd if I have commit access even though I'm not
>      officially a maintainer? 
This is also covered by a policy:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToMod...

--
Pat

[Ray Van Dolson]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:38:53PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:20:58AM -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>  > This is specifically in regards to the 'proftpd' package maintained by
>  > Matthias Saou.  Anyone know if he's around?
>  
>  I hope that he's still around... In any case he doesn't seems to be very 
>  active.
>   
>  >   - How can I see who currently are maintainers and comaintainers for a
>  >     package?
>  
>  This one is easy, just go to 
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/
>  and search for proftpd. Or directly use the package url explained
>  on
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UsingPackagedb#What.27s_...
> From https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/proftpd I
> only 
see the Owner columns set to 'thias'.  Does this mean there are no
co-maintainers defined?

>  >   - Is there a process to become a co-maintainer of a package
> when the
>  >     primary maintainer is absent?
>  
>  If the primary maintainer is absent there is a policy:
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMain... 
This would be a procedure to become the primary maintainer.  I am just
wanting to be added as a co-maintainer, not necessarily to supplant
Matthias... though I guess I will initiate this process nonetheless.

I guess I'm just wondering if someone out there could add me as a co
maintainer for the package -- thus saving some time over the non
responsive procedure and letting Matthias stay the owner if he returns.

>  >   - As a 'provenpackager' would it be acceptable for me
> to push a new
>  >     release of proftpd if I have commit access even though I'm not
>  >     officially a maintainer?
>  
>  This is also covered by a policy:
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToMod...
Thanks!

Ray

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>  On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:38:53PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:20:58AM -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> >> This is specifically in regards to the 'proftpd' package maintained by
> >> Matthias Saou.  Anyone know if he's around?
> > I hope that he's still around... In any case he doesn't seems to be very 
> > active.
> >  
> >>   - How can I see who currently are maintainers and comaintainers for a
> >>     package?
> > This one is easy, just go to 
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/
> > and search for proftpd. Or directly use the package url explained
> > on
> >
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UsingPackagedb#What.27s_...
>  
> >From https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/proftpd I only
>  see the Owner columns set to 'thias'.  Does this mean there are no
>  co-maintainers defined?
>   
Correct.

> >>   - Is there a process to become a co-maintainer of a package
> when the
> >>     primary maintainer is absent?
> > If the primary maintainer is absent there is a policy:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMain...
>  
>  This would be a procedure to become the primary maintainer.  I am just
>  wanting to be added as a co-maintainer, not necessarily to supplant
>  Matthias... though I guess I will initiate this process nonetheless.
>  
>  I guess I'm just wondering if someone out there could add me as a co
>  maintainer for the package -- thus saving some time over the non
>  responsive procedure and letting Matthias stay the owner if he returns.
>   
There isn't but there should be.  Rahul started to put together a policy
for that that would have modified the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy.
It was not approved by FESCo but I don't remember what the sticking
points were.

-Toshio

[Patrice Dumas]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:06:38PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  > 
>  There isn't but there should be.  Rahul started to put together a policy
>  for that that would have modified the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy.
>  It was not approved by FESCo but I don't remember what the sticking
>  points were. 
I only remember vaguely, one thing that was said was that one had
to wait for the packager containment of Jesse to be in place. Though I
think it is a progress to have packagers and provenpackagers, I don't 
think it will help here.

I'll go reread some mails.

--
Pat

[Patrice Dumas]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:06:38PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  > 
>  There isn't but there should be.  Rahul started to put together a policy
>  for that that would have modified the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy.
>  It was not approved by FESCo but I don't remember what the sticking
>  points were. 
I found the FESCo meetng result:

=== Collective Maintenance Proposal ===
* FESCo rejected the collective maintenance proposal (1) for now.  They
had some concerns about the extra bureaucracy, and they wanted to see
how the new maintainer containment policy (2) and opening acls (3) to
packagers helps first, since these are to be implemented in the very
near future.  If there is still a problem, this proposal could be
revisited.

1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenance
2. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/NewMaintainerContainment
3. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/PackageACLOpening


The logs are at:
http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2008-07-30.html

but not at lot more was said than what is in the summary.

--
Pat

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:06:38PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > There isn't but there should be.  Rahul started to put together a policy
> > for that that would have modified the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy.
> > It was not approved by FESCo but I don't remember what the sticking
> > points were.
>  
>  I found the FESCo meetng result:
>  
>  === Collective Maintenance Proposal ===
>  * FESCo rejected the collective maintenance proposal (1) for now.  They
>  had some concerns about the extra bureaucracy, and they wanted to see
>  how the new maintainer containment policy (2) and opening acls (3) to
>  packagers helps first, since these are to be implemented in the very
>  near future.  If there is still a problem, this proposal could be
>  revisited.
>  
>  1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenance
>  2. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/NewMaintainerContainment
>  3. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/PackageACLOpening
>  
>  
>  The logs are at:
>  http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2008-07-30.html
>  
>  but not at lot more was said than what is in the summary. 
Okay, so it sounds like FESCo wants to see whether:
1) provenpackagers feel comfortable just stepping up and making changes
after they've done due diligence trying to contact the maintainer.

2) Whether there will be any hurt feelings on the part of maintainers
when provenpackagers make changes to their packages.

Since the OP said they have provenpackager and has tried to contact
thias, I guess it's time to see how these two work out.

-Toshio

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:08:57 -0800, Toshio wrote:

>  Okay, so it sounds like FESCo wants to see whether:
>  1) provenpackagers feel comfortable just stepping up and making changes
>  after they've done due diligence trying to contact the maintainer.
>  
>  2) Whether there will be any hurt feelings on the part of maintainers
>  when provenpackagers make changes to their packages.
>  
>  Since the OP said they have provenpackager and has tried to contact
>  thias, I guess it's time to see how these two work out. 
2) -> depends on what changes someone wants to apply.

It ought to start with actual bug-fixes (in reply to bz tickets!) and
security-fixes. Not version upgrades, because upstream has released just
another minor release including "rewrites from scratch", feature
enhancements, "minor fixes" and similar stuff that breaks quite often.
Not major spec formatting changes or "cleanup" either.

Package maintainers do need to set up mail filters for the cvs commit
diffs anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if in several cases they would
reply quickly after seeing the commits.


What's the status update on bodhi? Can provenpackagers submit
updates for packages they can commit to and build? Or do they need
to be in the pkg's devel cancommit acl?

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 02:08:57AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  
>  Okay, so it sounds like FESCo wants to see whether:
>  1) provenpackagers feel comfortable just stepping up and making changes
>  after they've done due diligence trying to contact the maintainer.
>  
>  2) Whether there will be any hurt feelings on the part of maintainers
>  when provenpackagers make changes to their packages.
>  
>  Since the OP said they have provenpackager and has tried to contact
>  thias, I guess it's time to see how these two work out. 
It shouldn't work like this, this contradicts Fedora policies. 
A policy change is needed if 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToMod...
is to be changed. Currently if thias package is modified for anything
else than what is covered in this policy, and if Ray isn't an 
"Experienced packagers" as defined in this document, he shouldn't
entitled to change thias package. 

Maybe the idea was to replace "Experienced packagers" by provenpackager
group members? If so it should really be done. And it is not a small
change, because the provenpackagers group is much bigger than the
"Experienced packagers" group (though the SIG stuff allows for 
interpretation here, and there could be people considered to be 
"Experienced packagers" because they are in a SIG, though they are not 
provenpackagers).

Once again when FESCo approve policy changes or new policies FESCo
people should make sure that the changes are documented.

--
Pat

[Jesse Keating]

On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 13:17 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  
>  
>  Once again when FESCo approve policy changes or new policies FESCo
>  people should make sure that the changes are documented. 
Given how huge the wiki is, FESCo needs help in identifying places that
need changing.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:39:19AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  
>  Given how huge the wiki is, FESCo needs help in identifying places that
>  need changing. 
The only place to change is:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy

And
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MaintainerResponsibility
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/SponsorResponsibility
if they become official.

Am I missing something?

All the policies should be here. Now some places in the documentation
also refer to the policies, but the policies are special, like the
packaging guidelines, they have a normative scope. And of course
policies can refer to other places in the wiki. 

What is in Policies is in my opinion under FESCo responsibilities, 
meaning that FESCo should verify that changes done by community 
members are right, and should make sure that new policies that are 
of relevance for packagers are documented here.

--
Pat

[Jesse Keating]

On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 22:09 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  Am I missing something? 
I  meant in general.  As things change via FESCo they could use some
help identifying all the places in the wiki that should change.

>  
>  All the policies should be here. Now some places in the documentation
>  also refer to the policies, but the policies are special, like the
>  packaging guidelines, they have a normative scope. And of course
>  policies can refer to other places in the wiki. 
>  
>  What is in Policies is in my opinion under FESCo responsibilities, 
>  meaning that FESCo should verify that changes done by community 
>  members are right, and should make sure that new policies that are 
>  of relevance for packagers are documented here. 
The discussion tab is perfect for this, drop a comment if you think
something should change.

I don't think however FESCo has appointed any people as maintainers of
the wiki space.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 01:30:22PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 22:09 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  > Am I missing something?
>  
>  I  meant in general.  As things change via FESCo they could use some
>  help identifying all the places in the wiki that should change. 
I am speaking about Policies, not about the whole wiki.

>  The discussion tab is perfect for this, drop a comment if you think
>  something should change. 
If I think something should change, I prefer changing it myself, 
or when the whole page needs to be reworked, I ask on 
fedora-devel-list.

>  I don't think however FESCo has appointed any people as
> maintainers of
>  the wiki space. 
You are missing my point. What I am saying is that each time FESCo 
accepts a new policy or a modification of a policy, someone from
FESCo should make sure that it is documented/changed in 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy

Not in th ewhole wiki, in the policies part. And it should not 
necessarily be somebody from FESCo who do the documentation, it
could be the person who proposed the policy.

Otherwise said, FESCo should appoint somebody to document accepted
or modified policies in the normative section,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy
when they are accepted or modified. It is a one tiume job on a
specific wiki subset.

--
Pat

[Jon Stanley]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; wrote:

>  Maybe the idea was to replace "Experienced packagers" by
> provenpackager
>  group members? If so it should really be done. And it is not a small
>  change, because the provenpackagers group is much bigger than the
>  "Experienced packagers" group (though the SIG stuff allows for
>  interpretation here, and there could be people considered to be
>  "Experienced packagers" because they are in a SIG, though they are not
>  provenpackagers). 
So the discussion of the size of 'provenpackager' has come up many
times to FESCo.  What we were considering (but AFAIK haven't done yet)
is calling for voluntary removal of folks from 'provenpackager' who
were seeded in the group but don't need the access. There are 281
people in the group today. I'm prepared to send a group e-mail out to
this effect.

I'd like to try the first option and see where it gets us, but are
there any other options in the eyes of the community that would work?
We really want provenpackager to work the way that it was originally
intended.

Another option has been re-seeding the group with only sponsors as was
originally proposed, however I'm sorta on the fence about that one.
What do folks think?

[Patrice Dumas]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 07:47:22PM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
>  
>  So the discussion of the size of 'provenpackager' has come up many
>  times to FESCo.  What we were considering (but AFAIK haven't done yet)
>  is calling for voluntary removal of folks from 'provenpackager' who
>  were seeded in the group but don't need the access. There are 281
>  people in the group today. I'm prepared to send a group e-mail out to
>  this effect.
>  
>  I'd like to try the first option and see where it gets us, but are
>  there any other options in the eyes of the community that would work? 
I think that sending a mail to all the provenpackagers who are not
sponsors (nor release managers if it is easy, but since there are few 
and they are likely to be sponsor already) would indeed be right. In 
the mail I think that some emphasis should also be put on security.

--
Pat

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 20:38 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  
>  >   - As a 'provenpackager' would it be acceptable for me to push a
>  new
>  >     release of proftpd if I have commit access even though I'm not
>  >     officially a maintainer?
>  
>  This is also covered by a policy:
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToMod...
Policy is a poor man's substitute for common sense. In response to the
original question -- I'd suggest that if there's a good reason for
wanting to ship a newer version, and if you've made a genuine attempt to
contact the maintainer, there's no reason not to go ahead and update it.

I would be very disappointed in any maintainer who got 'territorial'
about his/her packages for purely emotional reasons, rather than real
technical objections to your changes.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse(a)intel.com                              Intel Corporation

[Dan Horák]

Ray Van Dolson píše v Pá 19. 12. 2008 v 11:20 -0800: 
>  This is specifically in regards to the 'proftpd' package
> maintained by
>  Matthias Saou.  Anyone know if he's around?
>   
He is, but only sporadically.

>  I'm interested in becoming a co-maintainer for this package.  I
> haven't
>  tried recently to contact Matthias (I will), but past attempts have not 
Try it with a personal e-mail, I got in contact with him that way.

>  been answered and quite a few proftpd bugs are sitting open[1] --
> there
>  hasn't been an update to the package for a long time.  I don't
>  necessarily want to become the sole maintainer (although maybe), but
>  have the following questions I wasn't able to easily find the answers
>  to on the wiki:
>  
>    - How can I see who currently are maintainers and comaintainers for a
>      package? 
all info is in pkgdb  - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/
e.g. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/proftpd


		Dan