[RFC 0167] nixpkgs maintainer requirements #167
Conversation
infinisil
added
the
status: open for nominations
|
This RFC has not acquired enough shepherds. This typically shows lack of interest from the community. In order to progress a full shepherd team is required. Consider trying to raise interest by posting in Discourse, talking in Matrix or reaching out to people that you know. If not enough shepherds can be found in the next month we will close this RFC until we can find enough interested participants. The PR can be reopened at any time if more shepherd nominations are made. |
|
I would like to nominate myself as shepherd. I don't have prior experience shepherding a RFC, but I do know how to engage with the community and get things moving. |
|
I nominate @RaitoBezarius, which I know has already spent a lot of time thinking about this topic |
I humbly accept. |
|
I see two shepherds. Looking for 1 more. |
I am willing to be a shepherd |
| shepherd-team: (names, to be nominated and accepted by RFC steering committee) | ||
| shepherd-leader: (name to be appointed by RFC steering committee) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| shepherd-team: (names, to be nominated and accepted by RFC steering committee) | |
| shepherd-leader: (name to be appointed by RFC steering committee) | |
| shepherd-team: @Janik-Haag, @RaitoBezarius, @JulienMalka | |
| shepherd-leader: @Janik-Haag |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@adamcstephens Can you please merge this change?
infinisil
added
status: in discussion
and removed
status: open for nominations
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-03-05/40851/1 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-03-19/41829/1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems to introduce a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy with no real upside because it doesn't change what maintainers' responsibilities, despite being reachable which is in and of itself not very valuable.
I also doubt that this is really required since it is perfectly possible to remove maintainers from the list at the moment if it bothers anyone. Removing maintainers that have been inactive for a while if it is okay with the other maintainers is not a problem at all — no one is going to oppose that in practice.
Establishing a formal policy may just lead to unnecessary busywork where people start creating mass PRs of maintainer removals that creates a lot of noise for no real benefit.
I'd argue that being reachable is value and should be a minimum requirement of being a maintainer. How will you respond to issues with packages you maintain if you can't be reached? One of the core tenants of this RFC is to establish a requirement for maintainers to have an account on the nixpkgs hosting platform (aka GitHub). This does have value as spelled out in the RFC. |
Have you tried establishing how many maintainers actually don't have a GitHub account (which isn't the same as how many To me it looks like this is, if anything, a matter of clean up and amending the missing github account names to the maintainer list – both shouldn't require an RFC as well. |
I would tend to agree, but unfortunately such changes have in the past not been well received and some do consider this a significant enough change to warrant the RFC process. I’m happy to modify the scope of what is currently written here, but unless something has changed some of this cannot be implemented by PR alone. The requirement for an account may seem logical, but has not been consistently followed. We need to make it official. Relates to: NixOS/nixpkgs#273220 NixOS/nixpkgs#272199 NixOS/nixpkgs#273146 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-04-02/42643/1 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-04-16/43512/1 |
also available at https://github.com/adamcstephens/nixpkgs/blob/rfc0167/maintainers/maintainer-list.nix during the life of this RFC
|
For those following along, the changes in As working on this, I wondered if maybe we should also move all of this content to the README.md in |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-05-14/45414/1 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-05-28/46113/1 |
|
RFCSC: @Janik-Haag is there anything blocking this PR moving forward? Can you post a status update, indicate the next steps or organize a shepherd meeting that can help move this RFC to completion. |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-06-10/46817/1 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-06-24/47589/1 |
|
I don't plan to pursue this any further, and the shepherd has left the community. Feel free to adopt as desired. |
This PR adds an expectation and requirement for nixpkgs maintainers to include two forms of contact information. The first is an account on the nixpkgs hosting platform (GitHub) and the second is an alternative form such as email, matrix and adds discourse.
Rendered
final maintainer-list.nix