I am not so sure this is a solution. I think we need active maintainers, not only bugs fixes. IMHO we need a MIA ("missing in action") or "non responsive maintainer" policy. We have hundred of pending tickets, from months or years ago. And when we start to work in a abandoned activity, there are not a clear way to request access to git or aslo (aslo is easier than git) Debian have policies [1] point 7.4, and teams [2] to manage MIA, Fedora have a Non responsive maintainers policy [3]. Probably, we can change the time lapses, but the general idea is the same. Gonzalo [1] <a href="http://docs.huihoo.com/debian/manuals/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html">http://docs.huihoo.com/debian/manuals/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html</a> [2] <a href="http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/MIA">http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/MIA</a> [3] <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers</a> <div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Sascha Silbe <<a href="mailto:sascha-ml-reply-to-2011-2@silbe.org">sascha-ml-reply-to-2011-2@silbe.org</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi! I would like to propose adopting the Debian Non-Maintainer-Upload (NMU) process [1] for Fructose. Individual activity authors would also be encouraged to allow their activities to be NMU'ed following this policy. The sections I'd consider applicable to Sugar Labs are 5.11.1, 5.11.2 (read debian/changelog as Release Notes) and 5.11.4. Since the version number rules are different in Sugar, the NMU should append ".1" instead of "+nmu1" (e.g. "123.1" for an NMU based on the maintainer release "123"). A few key points: - NMUs are only to be done for bug fixes - all bugs that get fixed by the NMU must have been reported in the BTS [2] - the maintainer must have been given sufficient time to act (rule of thumb: 2-10 days depending on the severity of the bug that gets fixed) The Infrastructure Team [3] would be authorised to manage permissions on git.sl.o and a.sl.o as needed for the NMU to happen. Since Sugar Labs lacks an equivalent of the Debian New Maintainer process [4], I would like to add a requirement that the uploader has successfully gone through review for a Sucrose (Glucose + Fructose) package at least once and their patch been included in mainline. Note: Patch author and uploader can be different persons. Sascha [1] <a href="http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu" target="_blank">http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu</a> [2] <a href="https://bugs.sugarlabs.org/" target="_blank">https://bugs.sugarlabs.org/</a> [3] <a href="https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team" target="_blank">https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team</a> [4] <a href="http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint" target="_blank">http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint</a> -- <a href="http://sascha.silbe.org/" target="_blank">http://sascha.silbe.org/</a> <a href="http://www.infra-silbe.de/" target="_blank">http://www.infra-silbe.de/</a> _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> </blockquote></div>