From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HCmcP-0003Jc-Dq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:49:33 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l120mjW6025002; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:48:45 GMT Received: from averell.tiscali.it (averell.tiscali.it [213.205.33.55]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l120krTh022735 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:46:54 GMT Received: from c1358217.kevquinn.com (84.223.100.235) by averell.tiscali.it (7.2.079) id 458977D00044EB3D for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:46:53 +0100 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:49:19 +0100 From: "Kevin F. Quinn" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for February Message-ID: <20070202014919.0ea085ac@c1358217.kevquinn.com> In-Reply-To: <45C24B6D.4080903@gentoo.org> References: <20070201103001.74DF064F14@smtp.gentoo.org> <45C2332D.7000901@gentoo.org> <20070201193743.5c25eaf5@snowdrop> <45C24B6D.4080903@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.6 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_30g7kwTt53c_eZYAqt_Bnk7; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 5bd76d57-3175-468d-821d-b52bd14cf51d X-Archives-Hash: 737e306d2d77574ddc1a523d1762ed3a --Sig_30g7kwTt53c_eZYAqt_Bnk7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:19:57 +0200 Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:36:29 +0200 Petteri R=E4ty > > wrote: > > | I would like the council to discuss if we should have a policy on > > how | long to wait for a developer to respond to a non critical bug > > before | you can fix it yourself. > >=20 > > Wouldn't that depend highly upon the bug? > >=20 >=20 > It would but having some kind of deadline after which you are for > example free to take over the package if you want to would be nice. That's going too far; there's certainly no need to take over a package just to get a fix in. If you want to take over a package, asking the current maintainer has to be the first step, not to quietly wait for a timeout then just grab it. Similarly asking the current maintainer if they mind you putting a fix in. If that approach doesn't succeed, it should then be put in the hands of devrel to arbitrate. I don't see that anything more is needed. --=20 Kevin F. Quinn --Sig_30g7kwTt53c_eZYAqt_Bnk7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFwoqT9G2S8dekcG0RAhXtAJkBOPSvJFYD5Y7iyXj7I4wtbJnjdgCgl6Dy 2l/OaPGoKySHLCrGSFudqHw= =waid -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_30g7kwTt53c_eZYAqt_Bnk7-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list