Add-on review times at ATN

Matt Harris at
Sat Mar 23 01:41:37 UTC 2019

On 23-Mar-19 8:15 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> 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:
Option1.  Agree to loosing control if you abandon it.

Option 2.  We will delete it from server if option1 is not selected and 
there is no version for the current release.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4008 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list