[Project_owners] New Adoption Policy proposal

Scott Grayban sgrayban at gmail.com
Sun Aug 5 07:51:26 PDT 2007

Alrighty then... the current adoption policy is broke and I am not
going to sit here and try to establish a set policy when no one seems
to care about it.

Regardless of what happened earlier the fact remains the policy is
broke, now the board needs to fix it whether its now or later on when
it gets really complicated.

-- Scott

On 05/08/07, Axel Hecht <axel at pike.org> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> >
> > Ben Bucksch wrote:
> >> Note that mail gets lost sometimes due to spam-filters (or lack
> >> thereof), people temporarily have little time etc.. Some patches are
> >> just overly big and awkward and are rejected because of that, that's not
> >> bad ownership. Reviewers may not always have time.
> >>
> >> If the project is really dead *and* the owner does not respond to
> >> repeated attempts to contact, *including* 1-3 official threats from
> >> mozdev admins to take over the project, so the "run over by trunk" or
> >> similar condition, then I think it's fair, and in the interest of users,
> >> for the project to be taken over by a new maintainer (but it still
> >> matters who that is).
> >>
> > Who will be in charge of sending those emails?
> > What would be considered a threatening one?
> > How far apart would those emails need to sent?
> >
> >> So, as Alex said: Unless truck: consensus or fork.
> >>
> > The consensus seems to be leave it as a un-written & informal policy but
> > I'll warn everyone on the board here. Right no you only have a handful
> > of projects, if it really expands to a large base, which I think it
> > will, you will have to come up with a solid policy instead of _wringing
> > it_ with a lose informal policy.
> >
> > I still want to point out a few important things about project
> takeovers....
> >
> > 1) It's better to have a new developer for a project that is dead
> > instead of creating nTH forks just to carry on the main project. If
> > someone wants to take it over and is going to keep the same name why the
> > hell would you or anyone else think that is a bad thing? Especially for
> > the current users that use that tool/addon ?
> >
> > 2) Forking the exact same code base to carry on the existing dead
> > project..... now you will force them into changing the name when all
> > they wanted to do was to carry on the development --- not exactly fair.
> >
> > 3) How is anyone going to notify the users of that addon/tool that the
> > project is dead and no longer maintained and to go this new project
> > fork? Many users download the addon once and let the update do the
> > rest... some will never ever visit the home page again and will never
> > know about the fork.
> >
> > Those are the important ones..... I got a lot more to point out later on.
> >
> > -- Scott
> >
> You're missing the point, sadly. Please try to take a step back and look
> at the problem without your specific situation in mind.
> Neither I nor Ben have voiced our opinion on a lax policy, actually it's
> a rather strict policy.
> All your other comments are addressed already, if you read my post. I'm
> a tad vague on the actual team doing the messaging, mostly because I
> don't volunteer other people and don't have a role at mozdev myself.
> Axel
> _______________________________________________
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners

More information about the Project_owners mailing list