I know that you actively work on other packages and I am willing to help you with python-dns so feel free to give me that package if you don't have time to maintain it.

What are you looking for a response on? I don't see any bugs or comments from you for this package and no pull requests.

I'm alive still.

I see two bugs for python-dns. rhbz#1801247 and rhbz#1802998

I fired of a new build of the package.

I'm not sure how you tried to reach me before to conclude that I am unreachable ? But I think the non-responsive maintainer approach was a bit over the top :)

Believe me, there is no bad intention in this bug. I also didn't follow the nonresponsive maintainer policy completely and just started with this bug. I know that you are active so the purpose is to start a discussion.

BTW, I sent you an email about python-dns 10 days ago.

There are three bugs for python-dns, all in NEW state assigned to you:

- bz#1801247 - waiting for a reply since 2020-02-27 (with needinfo flag)
- bz#1802998 - created 2020-02-14 with some info from Petr Špaček a week ago
- bz#1764096 - this one can be closed IMHO

And my offer is still on the table - I maintain python-dns in RHEL and the switch of the crypto libraries is motivated by some RHEL components so I can help you with the maintenance.

> I'm not sure how you tried to reach me before to conclude that I am unreachable ?

Paul, I've e-mailed you about bz1801247 almost 3 weeks ago and there was no response.
Lumír then e-mailed you again, but there was no repsonse.

We NEEDINFO you in bugzillas, but there was no response. The non-responsive maintainer approach was the next best thing for us to try. Starting a discussion on maintainer responsiveness is in no way an invasive act. It is communication.


As we maintain the package in RHEL, it is entailment to us that the Fedora package is actively maintained and Lumír is willing to help with that.

> it is entailment to us

This should have been: it is essential to us

I added Lumir as package admin.

Thanks Paul.