[PEPr] Comment on RFC::[QA-Core] Orphaned packages

Daniel Convissor (http://pear.php.net/user/danielc) has commented on the proposal for RFC::[QA-Core] Orphaned packages. Comment: The word "lead" is used when "developer" may be more appropriate because if the people with "developer" karma are actively working on the package it isn't abandoned. Perhaps the RFC could contain text about the circumstances waranting the upgrading of current developers to leads. Some wording changes... EXISTING: A package with bugs open for longer than 2 months with no activity from the leads taken to fix these issues PROPOSED: A package with bugs open for longer than 2 months and the developers have not commented on the bug or made any commits to CVS during that time frame. REASON: A particular bug may not be fixed immediately for many reasons. As long as there's activity, the package isn't orphaned. -------------- EXISTING: A package that although it has no open bugs, has no release of code in CVS that contains bug fixes 6 months after their resolution. (i.e. lead fixes a bug, commits to CVS, closes the bug... and then doesn't make a release) PROPOSED: A package that has no open bugs and has bug fixes committed to CVS but does not have a release within 6 months of the bugs being fixed. REASON: Clarity. -------------- EXISTING: A package owned by somebody who is known (common knowledge) to not be active any longer. PROPOSED: A package owned by somebody who is commonly known to be inactive. REASON: Clarity. -------------- EXISTING: QA team will make the person who stepped up a new maintainer of the package. PROPOSED: If the QA team feels the person who stepped up is appropriate and capable, the team will make this person a new maintainer. REASON: Just because someone steps up doesn't make them the right person for the job. Proposal information: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=192 -- Sent by PEPr, the automatic proposal system at http://pear.php.net