More classes of maintainer

[Eric Gallager]

I agree, I would just urge caution and a full examination of all the
migration tools available; there are some projects that have done more
successful migrations than others. For example, there was this one
that made "mannequin" accounts of people so that the original
commenters were preserved, and I thought that was pretty neat. I
forget which project it was, though...

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 4:19 PM Herby G <herby.gillot at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I actually do think moving tickets and issues from Trac to GitHub Issues is a good idea, and would increase engagement for the project.
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, 10:19 Perry E. Metzger <perry at piermont.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/1/23 21:54, Joshua Root wrote:
>> > On 2/11/2023 12:32, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> >> As an aside, as it stands, the rules situation with closed maintainer
>> >> / open maintainer is kind of unpleasant already. For example, I'd
>> >> like to be able to indicate that I'm happy with anyone making
>> >> reasonable changes to my ports on their own without waiting three
>> >> days for me, but there's no way to do that, because "open maintainer"
>> >> really means "three day timeout" just like closed. It would be nice
>> >> if we had some sort of larger set of gradations for what people
>> >> prefer, from "I handle all commits on this, period" to "if you have
>> >> commit access and want to help, don't ask, just do it."
>> >
>> > A reasonable idea. I'd say that at some point you become less of a
>> > maintainer and more of an interested party, but a list of people who
>> > would just like to be Cc'd on the tickets and PRs for a port isn't a
>> > bad thing to have.
>> >
>> > We seem to have somewhat different experiences, as the reason I
>> > removed openmaintainer from some of my ports was that it seemed to be
>> > interpreted more like "commit whatever you want without asking." So
>> > being able to set expectations more clearly would be nice.
>>
>> For most of my stuff, I don't want to get in the way of trivial updates.
>> If that just makes me an "interested party" so be it. What process would
>> work here?
>>
>> >> As another aside, we also have a ton of ghost maintainers who never
>> >> respond but whose name being on the port means you have to
>> >> ritualistically wait three days for a reply you know will never come.
>> >
>> > This is of course what the Port Abandoned procedure is for.
>> > Regrettably however, it also involves a three-day wait. :)
>>
>> The problem is, with separate trac and github stuff, there's now more
>> friction on those tickets, and I don't think it happens very much in
>> practice. Maybe part of that might be an indication that it's time to
>> move the ticket system to github, and the other trac pages into a github
>> wiki.
>>
>>
>> Perry
>>
>>