On 23/11/15 14:50, Richard Shaw wrote:
This is not about any particular instance, but browsing around pkgdb
various reasons I've run across ACL/pkgdb request that haven't gotten
approved (or rejected). I know we all get busy but it's not right to ignore
(intentionally or not) these requests from other packagers.
Some might be in favor of auto approval after a defined period of
inactivity but what if someone goes on an extended vacation? How long is
I think the least disruptive approach would be to start sending nag emails
after a certain period (1 week?).
I don't think there are any official guidelines about ACL etiquette, but
the approach I've always taken before requesting ACLs is to first post a
comment on bugzilla or send an email to the owner(s) of the package to
ask if they'd be happy, just to be polite.
On quite a few occasions I've received an ACL request (or many) out of
the blue from a packager I haven't had any associated communication from
(via email or bugzilla). I just ignore these requests (and reject
eventually after giving them a chance to offer any form of communication).
I haven't ever denied anyone commit access that has asked, so I'm
certainly not trying to create a wall around "my packages", but I think
opening a line of communication (preferably in a public channel such as
bugzilla) should be the default.
As such, I would be firmly against auto-approval. If the maintainer
doesn't respond (via bugzilla or email) to a co-maintainership request
and there are for example outstanding bugs then there is a
non-responsive maintainer protocol.