[development] adoption for 'abandoned' modules?

[AjK]

> > Gerhard/infrastructure: could we run info that shows us which modules
> > haven't had a commit in 3 months? Trimming and announcing stale
> > modules is something else we can do.

Some modules may never get "touched" because they just don't need it. What's
more important is the number of outstanding issues marked "bug" and how old
they are. That's a better indication of how neglected a project is over when
was the last commit made.

Moving on to Jill's comments, here's mine.

1. In the last patch I did for the cvs.module I improved the admin interface
a little. However, what I really wanted was an application timestamp (yes,
that's missing!). I intend to supply Derek/Zen a patch for this once the D5
dust has settled, so there's an opportunity for people to chip-in and that
CVS request form.

2. Currently it says "Motivation message" and not many people realize that
many of these messages read "I want to give back to this kick-ass system".
Not very useful in helping to make a decision and almost always leads to a
protracted email discussion to get what the applicant is really offering.
I'd actually like to see the application form ask for something more
formal/detailed. Ideas?

3. The idea of a co-maintainer is a good one and we should update the
handbook with a "best practices" section on being a responsible project
maintainer. There's a very good handbook section for CVS and maybe this
should live there. Also, I see a lot of links to Dries article about being a
responsible maintainer. Those words ought to be on d.o somewhere to (aka
"best practices guide").

As a side note on this, I recently tried to encourage an (obviously
overworked) maintainer to take on co-maintainer and that met with
resistance. Why? because the maintainer used the module a lot on his own
sites and therefore didn't want a stranger dabbling in the code base (and
that was after me explaining that 1 cvs protects you and 2 they won't be
strangers for long, unless they cock-up ;)

4. I think offering maintainers some choice as to how long we should wait
after they've been buried (after being hit by that truck) is a bad idea and
just state "if your bug issue queue goes un-maintained for x weeks without
input we reserve the right to appoint a co-maintainer whose offering help".
The co-maintainer can then apply at a later stage to take over proper if the
original maintainer doesn't return. That's a judgement that's made later by
d.o admins. But, appointing a co-maintainer really can't do that much
damage, as said, cvs protects you.

I think the concept of having lots of options that people can select at
application time (or after the fact on a project itself) isn't too good an
idea. Follow the guidelines and best practice (to be written) and that'll go
along way to straighten out some of these issues.

--Andy