search

outmoded / hapi-contrib

Discussion forum for project contributors
Other
78 stars 25 forks source link

Add takeover rules for modules with absent lead maintainer #118

Closed hueniverse closed 5 years ago

hueniverse commented 6 years ago

I am proposing we add a simple process for removing someone as a lead maintainer when they are just not responding. Something along the line of no activity by the lead maintainer for 30 days and no response to an issue asking about lead maintainer interest for 14 days. I think if you have been ignoring your module for a month and a half, you should no longer lead it.

If a lead shows up later with an explanation and would like to get the module back, we should try to accommodate.

This has been my process for the past 6 months but I would like to codify it.

Comments?

marcuspoehls commented 6 years ago

Sounds good to me

iniva commented 6 years ago

This is only for Github? I think we should also have a process for managing npm publish permission/[shared-]ownership.

In my case I took the lead with catbox-memcached, but I can't publish the new version since I don't have the npm permission.

Marsup commented 6 years ago

@iniva This is a specific case that shouldn't happen, a maintainer should obviously have both permissions.

hueniverse commented 6 years ago

This is for both npm and github. catbox-memcached is the only hapi module with a single npm owner. I am working to fix it shortly.

iniva commented 6 years ago

Nice, thank you!

devinivy commented 6 years ago

Sounds good to me, and in the spirit of the governance docs,

Lead maintainers cannot be removed unless they leave, assign their position to someone else, or have become inactive for 30 days and fails to respond to attempts to communicate, at which point a new contributor will assume responsibility for the repository. There are no other ways to remove a lead maintainer as long as the repository remains part of the hapi.js organization.

I also support this idea,

If a lead shows up later with an explanation and would like to get the module back, we should try to accommodate.

Marsup commented 6 years ago

Should we then add a part about the rules of co-leading a module if that case can happen ?

hueniverse commented 6 years ago

I think we can add additional leads but I want to keep ownership to one person. If you have specific language in mind, I'm open to it.

Marsup commented 6 years ago

OK, I thought accommodate meant a different scenario. The criteria of giving back a module to someone who disappeared seems a bit weak but I don't see a fair way. Core members vote maybe?

hueniverse commented 6 years ago

I'm good with a vote.