I'm willing to extend the packager the benefit of the doubt and guess that they are a non-native English speaker. Before we take any harsh measures, I wonder if we have any fluent Japanese speakers that could reach out and see if they just don't understand what they're being asked for.

It looks from the conversation in the PR that the maintainer doesn't understand the difference between EXPECTED to "provide the same functionality" and ACTUALLY "provide[s] the same functionality". At least, that's my guess from "Because there is no guarantee currently that [python]2 and [python]3 behaves exactly the same, I will revert the change."

That said, if it's true that this is a pattern of behavior (I'll ask @tibbs to provide some citations for his message), I think we should consider following the Non-Responsive Exception Procedure and revoke the packager's access to these packages until and unless they acknowledge that they are required to follow the packaging guidelines.

See this mass commit by @tibbs that got reverted with empty commit message within hours.

Also see:

• https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1627130
• https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629762
• https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629818

OK, yeah. This is clearly a pattern of behavior.

Proposal: FESCo un-sponsors @mtasaka from the packager group and orphans all maintained packages as we would for the non-responsive maintainer exception process. This is done in response to a pattern of behavior of ignoring the established packaging guidelines and changes to it approved by FESCo.

I vote +1, regrettably. I don't like censuring active members of the community, but we have rules and violating them has to come with some penalty.

Could we just warn about that and give them a chance?

@churchyard I've tagged them on this thread. If they chime in here before we make a final decision, we can take that into account.

(Also note that they are a provenpackager.)

Sorry, here let me apologize my recent attitude. I am now thinking sentence, so it may take some time to type it... (Still try writing)

Heh, -1 to the proposal. I'd rather let @mtasaka explain this and give them a chance to correct the behavior.

The below sentence may not express what I want to express well, however I am doing my best to express it.

Well, as said above let me here apologize my recent attitude especially against python2 deprecation and reflecting recent packaging guideline change, that is, while you, many packagers are cooperating with discussion or package change commitment, I took action against that which would certainly make you disappointed.

From the time I became a maintainer on Fedora 10 years ago, I think I did my better or best effort to contribute to Fedora or OSS, with mainly packaging softwares at first, then later analyzing bug reports, reporting them to upstream and help debugging / packaging lots of packages being owned by other people. Then as you wrote above I got accepted as being "sponsor" (called at that time), and I became somewhat "confident" with my activity on Fedora, and came to handle packages owned by other people more and more.

However I think I had been always careful when touching packages not owned by myself even after I became "sponsor", not to make mistakes, not to break such packages and not to make package owners disappointed or angry (, while breaking my package by myself is due to myself, so it cannot be helped). Actually perhaps this is because I would get disappointed if such thing happens on packages owned by me. For some major change, I would always asked package owners if I can make such change.

And while (I think) I had been careful for packages owned by other people, during some long activity on Fedora, actually I've seen some people, even provenpackagers made some critical mistakes, commited some major changes owned by my packages without asking me and often I directly expressed my anger or protest against those who did so. So maybe I became disgusted with packages I own being touched by other people or other people saying something on packages maintained by me.

But of course Fedora is community-driven project and usually packaging owners like you are doing with good faith. I must re-recognize, not forget it and I must respond to your action with proper attitude. So now I try behaving better and being more cooperative with Fedora community.

For adopting new packaging guideline, sorry for reverting changing. For python2 deprecation, while it may take some time I take a look at them one by one.

Thank you for reading my sentense. Let me go to bed for now.

Alright, with this reply, I'll revise my vote to -1 for the time being. It sounds like they're willing to make a change to their behavior here.

@cstratak please re-apply your guideline-updating patches. @mtasaka if you feel any mistakes were made (not simply differences of opinion with the Fedora Change that is driving it), please correct those individually. Do not perform a complete reversion.

Thank you @mtasaka for your answer and the self reflection. I can definitely understand being frustrated by other people making sudden or breaking changes to your packages, but as many things, communication is the key here.

I'd like to think that proven packagers, have good intentions in mind as far as the distro goes, but mistakes always can happen, which will result in breakage, anger, frustration etc. And miscommunication on top of that, will drive the arguments further down the drain. But we are all here to remind each other that Fedora can thrive only when we collaborate and that means effective communication between all the parties involved.

So again thanks for your answer. I believe the ticket can be closed if there are no remarks from anyone else.

I was approved in packager group by mtasaka on 2008-08-14 14:38:40 -03, so he is a contributor for a long time, more than 10+ years. ( he was my mentor and teached me the basics of packaging)

I would like to say that for me the person who was dis-respectfull was the person who commits to someone else package without filling a pull request and waiting at least 15 days to commit in case of non response from the owner.

when someone commits to my packages without asking, the commiter can go to a path that makes angry the package owner, please think about that when making changes to someone else packages

I was approved in packager group by mtasaka on 2008-08-14 14:38:40 -03, so he is a contributor for a long time, more than 10+ years. ( he was my mentor and teached me the basics of packaging)
I would like to say that for me the person who was dis-respectfull was the person who commits to someone else package without filling a pull request and waiting at least 15 days to commit in case of non response from the owner.
when someone commits to my packages without asking, the commiter can go to a path that makes angry the package owner, please think about that when making changes to someone else packages

That is not really the issue here though, there are distro guidelines to follow for which proven packagers take it upon themselves to carry the work.

So no it's disrespectful technically speaking, but on the social aspect it can be perceived as such. Also you do not own a package, it's not yours to do as you wish, but you help with maintaining it for the betterment of the distro, it's all about working and collaborating, not segregating between 'my packages' and 'your packages'.

I refiled the PR that started this discussion:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/catfish/pull-request/2
Let's start afresh.

+1 to closing this ticket. I hope things go better this time.

+1 to close and thanks everyone for communicating.

Again, I wil try more cooperative with people on Fedora. Thank you for discussing this.