Offering to co-maintain Content Check

In my experience, it is impossible to become a co-maintainer of anything owned by David Reid unless David Reid himself signs you on as co-maintainer (and as a general rule, he won't). He is very active and very respected in the Drupal community, but he also a very busy person and very hard to get hold of. I have never received any form of reply from him when trying to make contact offering to co-maintain one of his projects into security coverage. He also almost never reviews patches (at least not mine), or commit patches marked RTBC.

My advice if you want to move forward with your Drupal 8 port and implement a pluggable solution: Don't waste your time here waiting for an git admin to resolve this. Start your own project.

Ownership transfer doesn't require users with the Git administrator role. It's sufficient a Drupal.org webmaster.

Ownership transfer doesn't require users with the Git administrator role. It's sufficient a Drupal.org webmaster.

True. As a webmaster I can use the "Edit" tab to change ownership. However, as webmaster I do not have access to "Maintainers" tab, so I cannot add a co-maintainer. See screendump below:

AFAIK, David Reid is still active in the community, so I do not think a ownership transfer is the correct way to resolve this.

I'll (again!) try to make contact with David Reid to get his opinion on this.

Basing on the value selected for Component, and the terminology used from the OP, the OP asked for being the project owner.

Basing on the value selected for Component, and the terminology used from the OP, the OP asked for being the project owner.

Agreed.

However, I am not going to transfer ownership without an OK from the present owner as long as the present owner is clearly active in the community. So if this is going to happen, someone else will have to do it.

@nterbogt,
now you at least have a status update.

As already stated in #4, I believe your best option if you want to get the Drupal 8 code you've already created on GitHub hosted on Drupal.org: Start your own project. There is no Drupal 8 branch of the present project, so you are not competing.

However, if you want to settle for co-maintainership, downgrade the "Component" of this request from "Ownership transfer" to "Co-maintaining offer". (I can't help you with becoming co-maintainer, as this is beyond what a webmaster here can do, but some of the other admins may be willing to help in that case.)

However, I am not going to transfer ownership without an OK from the present owner as long as the present owner is clearly active in the community. So if this is going to happen, someone else will have to do it.

I didn't mean it was necessary to immediately transfer the project ownership to the user who opened this issue, but that transferring the project ownership (as for any other content type) is a task a webmaster can do.

Asking to be co-maintainer doesn't change what will be done, as in any case the project owner will be contacted. (It also means that asking for becoming co-maintainer of a project isn't faster than asking to be the new maintainer / project owner.)

nterbogt,
I just noted that Content Check is a project that is subject to security advisory coverage.

There is a special note about this:

If you are interested in becoming the owner (maintainer) of a Drupal contributed project that has opted into security coverage, you must also have permission to opt into security coverage.

Can you confirm that you have permission to opt into security coverage?

In #10, kiamlaluno wrote:

Asking to be co-maintainer doesn't change what will be done, as in any case the project owner will be contacted. (It also means that asking for becoming co-maintainer of a project isn't faster than asking to be the new maintainer / project owner.)

I am fully aware of the procedure being the same (and that it will take the same time to complete). However, it is much less intrusive to add a co-maintainer for a specific branch that the owner has shown no interest in, than to take away the ownership of the entire project and give it to somebody else.

@nterbogt: In order to become owner you need to follow the procedure as written : https://www.drupal.org/node/251466
Looks like you didn't follow item 6 correctly: The original issue should have stayed in the project itself, for the current maintainers to see your interest. They are not required to monitor Drupal.org project ownership queue for issues about their project.
Unfortunately, any mistake in the procedure needs you to start over and do things correctly.
When done correctly, webmasters shouldn't have reservations on transferring ownership.

In addition this module opted in for security coverage, do you qualify for becoming owner?
This is a prerequisite. Either qualify or start your own project.

@gisle That was for the OP, to make him know that asking to be a co-maintainer doesn't make things faster.

When done correctly, webmasters shouldn't have reservations on transferring ownership.

Following the procedure doesn't mean there aren't reservations. A user who didn't partecipate in the project issue queue, who wants to be the new maintainer of a project, may not become maintainer immediately or in the near future.

A user who didn't partecipate in the project issue queue

That user didn't follow procedure correctly!

Following the procedure doesn't mean there aren't reservations. A user who didn't participate in the project issue queue, who wants to be the new maintainer of a project, may not become maintainer immediately or in the near future.

I think this is a valid point. I've seen too many ownership applications from people who just want bragging-rights, but has little interest in maintaining the project. We should be able to reject those. (Note: I do not think that this is the case here.)

When done correctly, webmasters shouldn't have reservations on transferring ownership.

I also think this is an important point.

If we require proof of engagement in order to do resolve an application in a timely manner, then that requirement need to be spelled out in the procedure.

I have amended the procedure so that it now mentions this. Please feel free to edit if you think this can be improved upon.

In the case of this application, I believe that "engagement" provision has been fulfilled, viz: #3065087: Drupal 8 port.

The potential blocker of this application is whether the applicant has the have permission to opt into security coverage. So while I was at it, I also added some language making clear that for projects requiring this, the applicant must state up-front whether she/he has this permission.

(I believe kiamlaluno has access to user information and is able to verify, but I don't have access to it.)

nterbogt is a vetted user, so he can maintain a project that opted into security coverage.

I've tried to contact David Reid via contact tab and Twitter. Postponing until september 8. Will do a new review then if there still is no response.

Fixed bullet list with contact attempts in issue summary.

Despite being contacted through multiple channels, Dave Reid has not commented on this issue.
I've made nterbogt co-maintainer of Content Check.