Offering to maintain Drupal Moodle Integration

It is great that you want to maintain this project.

However, do get help from the webmasters you need to follow the protocol for becoming a maintainer.

For instance, the protocol says that you're supposed to to contact the current project owner via the contact tab on their Drupal.org user profile page (and/or other means of contact that exists) to let him/her know about your maintaining offer. There is no record of this being done. Please complete this step, and add the details (who, means of contact and when) to the issue summary.

It may be a good idea to also try to contact the project's maintainer: https://www.drupal.org/u/vignesh-soundararajan - as he/she also can set you up as a project maintainer if the person is responsive.

Postponing for now. Please set it back to "Active" two weeks after you've sent te PMs and updated the issue summary with details about the contact attempts.

Thanks for reply. I already did that part of the protocol two weeks ago when I opened this issue.

The protocol asks you to record the details in the issue summary. Did you expect us to be psychics?

Thanks for heads up. I was wrong.

The protocol used to say:

Put a record of attempts to make contact in the issue summary, spelling out who, when and how.

(See version from April 7, 2020 - https://www.drupal.org/node/251466/revisions/11814282/view).

But kiamlaluno decided to remove that part of the protocol on April 17 2020. I don't think that edit to the protocol was helpful, tho'. This step is IMHO necessary to avoid bypassing maintainers that might not know about the offer otherwise, and it is helpful for webmasters to know about it. See #3085678: Offering to maintain Google Analytics for a discussion about this.

I should have re-checked what the protocol page said, rather than relying on memory. I apologise for making an incorrect statement in comment #5. What I should have said is this:

While the protocol no longer asks you to record the details in the issue summary, I need to have this information in order to make timely progress on these requests. I am not psychic.

Or do I need to make a new contact and add that documentation?

No. I trust you. I've added the information about your attempt to contact the maintainers to the issue summary.

Basically, I just want to have an efficient system to handle these requests in a timely manner. The Drupal ecosystem needs projects to be well maintained, so when a project is abandoned, we want to fix that as fast as possible. On the other hand, we also want to respect the current maintainers. As long time community member jcnventura writes in the first related issue (comment #17):

I would hate it that someone would bypass me in assigning maintainers to a project, without at least hearing from me.

As a webmaster, I need to find a balance between these two concerns: Keeping the ecosystem healthy, and making sure a project owner has been given the opportunity to be heard before I bypass him/her and assign a new maintainer to his/her project in my capacity as webmaster.

The current maintainers of Drupal Moodle Integration are both active in the Drupal community, so I am going to try to contact them again so that they have been given the opportunity to weigh in, as per this point in the procedure:

The webmasters will normally try to contact the owner as an extra safeguard, unless it is evident the owner is no longer active in the Drupal community.

So the "safeguards" against bypassing an owner that is still active a community, but is neglecting the project in question, that is built into the current protocol is basically to have two rounds of contact attempts, spaced two weeks apart. The first must be made by the the person making the offer to maintain, the second is made by the webmaster. This makes the shortest possible time for getting help from the webmasters to four weeks. While documenting this is longer required (after April 17), missing documentation will without doubt make it take a longer time. Please see #3132055: Suggest also contacting the maintainers when offering to maintain for a proposal to fix this. If you agree, please weight in by commenting ("+1" will do).

So this is still postponed. Set this back to "Active" in two weeks if they still haven't shown up.

The project has been created from Vignesh soundararajan. On December, 2018, the ownership has been passed to Rajivgandhi Chinnakrishnan, as per https://www.drupal.org/project/projectownership/issues/3019562. I have never been the owner of the module, but I was the webmaster who changed ownership.

The issue opened from a user to become maintainer of a project is not land to discuss any change in the documentation for dealing with unsupported/abandoned projects. The revision from August, 2017 doesn't say the users must report if they contacted the project owner, since that is normally a question webmasters ask. That was a change unilaterally done from a user without consulting any webmaster.

The following step already present in the documentation is sufficient.

Also contact the current project owner via the contact tab on their user profile page to let them know about the issue you just posted and that if you don't hear back in the issue within two weeks the project could be marked unsupported.

The issue opened from a user to become maintainer of a project is not land to discuss any change in the documentation for dealing with unsupported/abandoned projects.

Agreed. So why are you discussing it?

There is a separate discussion for this: #3132055: Suggest also contacting the maintainers when offering to maintain, which has already been pointed to. I strongly suggest that any discussion about this takes place there.

What I did was not to discuss any changes, but explain why I did the refer to the wrong version of the procedure in comment #5.

You posted that comment. If you agreed, you should not have posted it. (Since this is the second time you comment on changing on the procedure for dealing on abandoned/unsupported projects, you should know the issue opened by a user to become co-maintainer/maintainer of a project isn't the place for these "discussions.")
It was also not necessary to say you disagree to explain why you referenced the previous revision.

You posted that comment. If you agreed, you should not have posted it.

I disagree with your call on comment #12.

Comment #12 is not discussing it. It is pointing to the correct issue for the discussion. I am glad to learn that you now have found it.

you should know the issue opened by a user to become co-maintainer/maintainer of a project isn't the place for these "discussions."

Again: I am not discussing it or about ut arguing here, just because I state that I disagree: To quote Monty Phyton (Argument Clinic):

An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

I sent a message to the project owner and the maintainer.

Hello Rajivgandhi,

I am writing you because Mikko (https://www.drupal.org/u/mikran) offered to maintain the Drupal Moodle Integration module (https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal_moodle_integration). May you post a comment on https://www.drupal.org/project/projectownership/issues/3134686 saying if you accept or decline the offer? Without a comment on that issue in the next 14 days, Mikko will probably be made maintainer.

Best regards,
kiamlaluno
-- Drupal.org webmaster
-- Drupal.org Git administrator

Hello Vignesh,

I am writing you because Mikko (https://www.drupal.org/u/mikran) offered to maintain the Drupal Moodle Integration module (https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal_moodle_integration) and you are the other user with full permissions on that module.

May you post a comment on https://www.drupal.org/project/projectownership/issues/3134686 saying if you accept or decline the offer? Without a comment on that issue in the next 14 days, Mikko will probably be made maintainer.

I also sent a message to the current project owner. Without a reply from him, we will consider your reply.

Best regards,
kiamlaluno
-- Drupal.org webmaster
-- Drupal.org Git administrator

Updated issue summary with information in comment #15.

But kiamlaluno decided to remove that part of the protocol on April 17 2020. I don't think that edit to the protocol was helpful, tho'. This step is IMHO necessary to avoid bypassing maintainers that might not know about the offer otherwise, and it is helpful for webmasters to know about it.

That is discussing a change that, to say it all, reverted a change you have unilaterally decided to do.

That is discussing a change that, to say it all, reverted a change you have unilaterally decided to do.

No, it isn't.

I am just expressing my opinion about your reversal. The discussion takes place here: #3132055: Suggest also contacting the maintainers when offering to maintain

Either a discussion or your opinion, it's not requested to explain why you referenced a previous revision of the procedure. For that, it was sufficient to say I am sorry, I was referring a previous revision.

kiamlaluno,
I don't think you can regulate when, where and how somebody express their disagreement with you. Instead, I think it would be better if you recused yourself from making such judgements.

@gisle You should do that, since it's the second time you have to show you disagree with me, but you forget to say you unilaterally did some changes in the procedure without asking the opinion of other webmasters who added maintainers and co-maintainers before you did.
If you have any opinion about the procedure, you should open an issue for that, instead of commenting on issues that have other topics. Don't put the blame on users who reply back, when you are the first who post comments about those users and what they do.

@gisle @kiamlaluno - please keep in mind that this is a public issue queue that is frequented by Drupal users of all experience levels. As leaders in the community, we must strive to go above and beyond our Values and Principles (https://www.drupal.org/about/values-and-principles).

Please keep in mind #10, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood" - as it appears that this conversation is devolving into something less than helpful.

I added mikran as maintainer of the project.