Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How to offboard maintainers #2309

Open
isuruf opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

How to offboard maintainers #2309

isuruf opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@isuruf
Copy link
Member

isuruf commented Sep 19, 2024

Maintainers go away due to various reasons and the question becomes what to do about maintainership of feedstocks.
If the feedstock has more maintainers, we just remove the maintainer.

If the feedstock has no maintainer, there are two scenarios

  1. Feedstock is a leaf node
  • Open an admin-request to archive the feedstock
  1. Feedstock is not a leaf node.
  • Open an issue in the feedstock that the feedstock is abandoned. Then cc all maintainers from downstreams.

All of this can be done as an admin-request.

Any thoughts on this @conda-forge/core ?

@beckermr
Copy link
Member

Above, did you mean "if a feedstock has no maintainer"?

Assuming that is true, then yes I think this plan sounds sensible.

@isuruf
Copy link
Member Author

isuruf commented Sep 19, 2024

Yes, sorry for the typo

@isuruf isuruf changed the title Offboarding maintainers How to offboard maintainers Sep 19, 2024
@isuruf
Copy link
Member Author

isuruf commented Sep 19, 2024

I looked at the members of conda-forge. We have 6.2k members, but we also have 5.7k members who did not join after becoming a maintainer. The criteria for offboarding need to be thought out, but that should be a different issue "Who do we offboard"

@beckermr
Copy link
Member

I wonder if we should reverse the staged-recipes workflow and require folks to join conda-forge before the recipe can be merged?

@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented Sep 20, 2024

Many users send a package to stage-recipes as a one-and-done action. They ignore the email to join on purpose b/c they don't want to really get involved any further. IMO this is a risk that is part of our model.

I wonder if we should reverse the staged-recipes workflow and require folks to join conda-forge before the recipe can be merged?

I'm not sure that would make a difference in how they behave. The, what I believe is the average maintainer who does this, would be part of the group but still inactive.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants