On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 06:51:22AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 6:44 AM Fabio Valentini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 12:21 PM Neal Gompa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 12:19 PM Mattia Verga via devel-announce > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > In accordance with FESCo's Inactive Packager Policy[1], packagers that > > > > have been identified > > > > as inactive have a ticket in the find-inactive-packagers repo[2]. One > > > > week after the final > > > > release, packagers who remain inactive will be removed from the > > > > packager group. (Note that > > > > pagure.io is one of the systems checked for activity, so commenting on > > > > your ticket that you're > > > > still around will prevent you from showing up in the second round.) > > > > > > > > If you have suggestions for improvement, look for the open feature > > > > issues[3] and file an issue > > > > in the find-inactive-packagers repo[4] if it's not there already. > > > > > > > > For the curious, here are the stats from today's run: > > > > > > > > ### Found 1459 users in the packager group. ### > > > > ### Found 606 users with no builds in Koji over the last year. ### > > > > ### Found 305 users with no activity in pagure/src.fp.org over the last > > > > year. ### > > > > ### Found 282 users which didn't post any message in Fedora Discussion > > > > over the last year. ### > > > > ### Found 254 users which also show no activity in Bodhi over the last > > > > year. ### > > > > ### Found 234 users which also show no activity in mailing lists over > > > > the last year. ### > > > > ### Found 167 users which also show no activity in Bugzilla over the > > > > last year. ### > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_inactive_packagers/ > > > > [2] > > > > https://pagure.io/find-inactive-packagers/issues?tags=inactive_packager&status=Open > > > > [3] https://pagure.io/find-inactive-packagers/issues?tags=feature > > > > [4] https://pagure.io/find-inactive-packagers/new_issue > > > > > > > > > > This is kind of horrifying, but also I wonder if these people look > > > like they're inactive because they're over-relying on Packit to do > > > their work. > > > > > > For example, linux-system-roles got auto-orphaned once because the > > > packager set up fire-and-forget Packit configuration years ago and > > > they proceeded to do nothing else in Fedora. > > > > > > It wouldn't surprise me if some Packit adoption is responsible for a > > > large chunk of this. > > > > I don't think this can be the case - you still need to minimally > > interact with src.fp.o to get packit-created PRs moving, as far as I > > know ... so that would count as "activity" here. > > > > You do not have to, I believe you can give packit direct commit privileges > and then it's completely hands-free.
Do we have any project guidance around this level of automation ? I would have expected a human to stay in the loop at some point in the Fedora package update process, even if only a tickbox approval of some kind. Offloading the entire package maintainer responsibility to a service that lives outside Fedora infra, such that there is no trace of maintainer activity in Fedora feels wrong. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :| -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
