Add-on review times at ATN

Mark Rousell mark.rousell at signal100.com
Fri Mar 22 21:45:03 UTC 2019


On 22/03/2019 21:31, Mihovil Stanić wrote:
> Why just don't transfer ownership of add-on to another willing
> developer under certain rules?
> Making this up, but something like this:
>
>   * add-on must have open source licence
>   * original developer is MIA for lets say more then 6 months
>   * ATO/ATN staff tried to contact original developer at least 3 time
>     in period of 1 month
>

This approach would also require a fourth prerequisite: That the
original developer would need to sign up to these terms at the outset
(as a condition for hosting their addon on ATN).

Will developers be willing to sign up to such a term, i.e. that their
project could be 'taken away' from them? I would think not for two reasons:

(1) It is one thing to produce an open source project that can be forked
by anyone at any time but to have *your* *own* *project* potentially
taken away from you (even if it will only be taken away if it appears to
be abandoned) is another thing entirely.

(2) What's the point anyway when an open source project can be forked if
needed or if desired. Requiring developers to agree to an extra term
that allows their own project to be taken over by someone else when this
scenario is already fully provided-for by normal forking seems
superfluous and redundant.

In fact I think my suggestion here is somewhat orthogonal to how one
takes over (or forks) a pre-existing project. Instead I am suggesting a
way for users to be shown possible upgrade paths from their existing
addons to addons with similar or enhanced functionality.

-- 
Mark Rousell
 
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20190322/2c355717/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the tb-planning mailing list