[Haskell-cafe] Package Takeover: `toml`

Bryan Richter b at chreekat.net
Sat Mar 13 06:52:16 UTC 2021

Fair point: my suggestion was unclear. I agree that explicitly stating a
takeover request is important. I meant to suggest widening the search as an
intermediate step between direct contact with the maintainer and the
takeover announcement, itself. It could be step 1.B.?

For the record, I think that Emily, Tom, and others acted reasonably and in
good faith in this thread, although my own tone was regrettably snappy.

I do think the existing policy works, but I stand by my (clarified)
suggestion. Even if the actual maintainer is unruffled by the sudden
appearance of a takeover announcement, as in this case, the wider public
--- most of whom probably aren't even aware of the policy --- should also
be considered. I think it's easier to avoid [confusion] than resist it. If
people keep getting confused by the same thing, maybe it's the thing itself
that needs clarification.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021, 23.27 Gershom B, <gershomb at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 12, 2021, 12:27 PM -0500, Bryan Richter <b at chreekat.net>, wrote:
> Can I suggest to the Hackage Whoever a slight change in policy?
> I think the shock of seeing a package takeover request for your own
> package is understandably, uh, shocking, and makes the ensuing discussion
> tense. I also feel like most takeover requests follow this pattern; rarely
> does a package end up changing hands.
> Perhaps it's a problem of tone.
> Rather than suggesting "State your intention to take over the package in a
> public forum ", step 2 should lighten up and state, "After trying to reach
> the maintainer for a reasonable amount of time, reach out to the public to
> expand your search."
> https://wiki.haskell.org/Taking_over_a_package
> The proposed change is not just a tone change. The point of step 2 is that
> an official request be filed in a public forum and sufficient time then
> pass that we can be confident the maintainer has been publicly informed of
> the issue. It’s not about having a heavy tone or the like.
> This whole fracas is simply the result of confusion and miscommunication —
> a package appeared unmaintained, but it turned out that there was a
> maintainer, but it was hard to tell because the maintainer was not listed
> on the last uploaded package. The correct fix for this is everyone chill
> out, go for a walk, and then get on with more productive things.
> By the way, I should mention that there _is_ a hackage audit log of who
> has been added to maintainer (and trustee and admin) groups, and by whom,
> since there seemed to be some confusion about that.
> Best,
> Gershom
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20210313/d11b6fc8/attachment.html>

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list