Topic on Talk:Code stewardship reviews/Feedback solicitation/AbuseFilter

Our communities are critically dependent on AbuseFilter. It goes without saying that we're not going to disable it.

So I guess the point of this is to try and get more resources for AbuseFilter. Fair enough, it should probably have them. But having a "sunsetting" committe which is really used as a place to try and convince foundation to invest in critical components as opposed to figuring out what to do with forgotten software thats not worth the maintenance drag, seems kind of disingenuous to me, if I'm being honest.

[This comment also applies to TimedMediaHandler]

@Bawolff, I'm trying to figure out how to respond to this effectively. As you can see in the other topic I just resolved the process is not only (or even primarily! it's only one of a multitude of options) about sunsetting, which is why it's not called that. This is a process for reviewing the current reality of stewardship for a project/component/whatever and determining what the best course of action should be. I would assume many would call that a healthy thing to do on a periodic basis.

I'm not sure which part you are calling disingenuous, honestly.

"disingenuous" was much too strong a word. I apologize.

I'm concerned much of this was structured similar to how community processes around deletion work. In a way it felt like this was AFD for extensions. I think this unnessarily paniced many people in our community.

I am also somewhat doubtful what resolution this process can bring. AbuseFilter has been unmaintained (or at least under-maintained) for a long time. Will management see this and suddenly dedicate resources? If so, why not earlier? Its not like it has been a secret it is under maintained.

My initial reaction to this was it felt like it was intentionally riling up community members in order to "prove" that we should invest in this feature, in a rather machiavellian way (This was where the word "disingenuous" came from). This however was a distinct lack of AGF on my part (In fact I was assuming paranoid conspiracy theories).

This was wrong of me. I'm sorry for the tone of my previous post. It was based on bad faith assumptions which I should not make.

I think the initial perception many of us got was that this process was mostly focusing on "sunset or not". The group is called the "Sunsetting working group". And on Code stewardship reviews, it focuses mostly on sunset and barely seems to mention "re-invest" as one of the options - even though that's likely the best option here.

Let's work to rephrase some of that then!

The process came out of the "Sunsetting Working Group" but that group quickly decided that the process would not be a "sunsetting process" but instead a "review with multiple options: re-invest, sunset, something in between".