[Process] Proposal to revise unmaintained charms workflow

[Charles Butler]

Greetings,

We've recently encountered a scenario where our verbiage in the
unmaintained charm process is a tad confusing and limiting given the
scenario that a charm author requests to no longer maintain their charm.

For reference, the document in question is located here:
https://jujucharms.com/docs/stable/charm-unmaintained-process

Given the scenario that a charm author wishes to maintain their charm and
informs ~charmers they will no longer be developing, patching, or updating
- essentially abandoned the charm - the verbiage states:



   1.

   File a bug against charm saying “Maintainer needed”
   2.

   Is charm broken?
   1.

      Follow “Workflow for identifying and triaging unmaintained charms”
      process


This particular process includes a 30 day wait period to take *any* action
on the charm. What we would like to propose is:

A bug be filed for "Maintainer Needed", the charm be moved to
~unmaintained-charms, and a call to arms be issued to the list for a new
maintainer. Thus not leaving a potentially broken charm in the charm-store
for an extended time-wait scenario, allowing other potential consumers to
encounter the unmaintained, and potentially broken charm.

If someone steps into the role of maintainership, it's a simple process to
put the charm back in the store under the new maintainer.

If you have any dispute with this potential change, please respond to this
thread. No verbal dispute will constitute acceptance, and we will amend
during the Charmer Summit starting Sept 17th.

Thanks

Charles Butler <charles.butler at canonical.com> - Juju Charmer
Come see the future of datacenter orchestration: http://jujucharms.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/attachments/20150904/114e2430/attachment.html>