1 |
Hello, |
2 |
|
3 |
In context of the recent plan of disbanding the Samba team, I'd like to |
4 |
ask for better ideas on how to deal with projects that technically make |
5 |
sense but are currently dead/defunct. This means that either they have |
6 |
no members, all their members are inactive or simply don't want to work |
7 |
on the specific project anymore. |
8 |
|
9 |
Of course, the first step is to look for new project members. However, |
10 |
let's assume we've already done that and unsuccessfully. What should |
11 |
happen next? |
12 |
|
13 |
So far I've been leaning towards disbanding the project and moving |
14 |
packages to maintainer-needed. This has the advantage of clearly |
15 |
indicating that those packages are unmaintained, with all the common |
16 |
implications of that. |
17 |
|
18 |
However, it also has been pointed out that this frequently 'ungroups' |
19 |
packages while being maintained by a single project makes sense for |
20 |
them. I don't really have a strong opinion on this -- especially that |
21 |
sometimes this actually helped people decide to take at least some of |
22 |
the packages. On the other hand, Ada is an example of project that has |
23 |
been recreated after being disbanded. |
24 |
|
25 |
Do you have any suggestions how we could effectively achieve the effect |
26 |
similar to 'maintainer-needed' without disbanding projects? |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Best regards, |
30 |
Michał Górny |