In T87730#1000846, @coren wrote:

The "real" solution remains to hound maintainers to make certain they are not alone with access to a tool if it starts getting some use - so that there is already someone with all the right accesses to take over at need, of course. :-)

Definitely. It may not solve the problem for already abandoned tools, but existing maintainers should be encouraged to recruit other trusted users from the beginning.

Is someone planning to work on this task during the month of May? If so, please take it. If not, maybe it is better to lower its priority?

In T87730#1248601, @Qgil wrote:

Is someone planning to work on this task during the month of May? If so, please take it. If not, maybe it is better to lower its priority?

@Qgil - the only thing holding this up is waiting for someone to close the RfC on meta that has been idle for almost two months now. Do you think you could close it or find someone to do so? That would be great. Thanks.

I don't know if just closing the rfc on meta is enough - this needs some
consensus from the tech community / toollabs admins / wikimedia foundation
ops.

In T87730#1249301, @yuvipanda wrote:

I don't know if just closing the rfc on meta is enough - this needs some
consensus from the tech community / toollabs admins / wikimedia foundation
ops.

Perhaps, but it seems like that would be the logical next step to get this moving again. :)

Is the Cloud-Services team considering this task as a July-September quarterly goal, at a team or individual level? Or is there anybody else willing to contribute time to push this task further in the next months?

In T87730#1249301, @yuvipanda wrote:

I don't know if just closing the rfc on meta is enough - this needs some consensus from the tech community / toollabs admins / wikimedia foundation ops.

So somebody needs to drive finding consensus by reaching out to venues like wikitech-l@, labs-l@, operations@ and ask for providing more input on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Abandoned_Labs_tools ?
Any on-wiki places or other venues that come to anybody's mind who should be contacted?

I'm also wondering how much this whole process is (not) similar/comparable to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Project_ownership#Requesting_repository_ownership (as we discuss defining and dealing with inactive code repositories in T102920).

In T87730#1577350, @Aklapper wrote:

I'm also wondering how much this whole process is (not) similar/comparable to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Project_ownership#Requesting_repository_ownership (as we discuss defining and dealing with inactive code repositories in T102920).

Very much - at least conceptually. I would expect that many cases of one would also involve the other, for that matter. Both conversations are parallel enough that merging them seems indicated.

This task has been idling for about a year now, with the RfC going nowhere, and I don't remember any other requests apart from T127494. Is a formal process with lots of criteria and instructions to be followed to the letter still needed? If so, there needs to be someone who drives the discussion and distills it into a draft policy.

In T87730#2119736, @scfc wrote:

This task has been idling for about a year now, with the RfC going nowhere, and I don't remember any other requests apart from T127494. Is a formal process with lots of criteria and instructions to be followed to the letter still needed? If so, there needs to be someone who drives the discussion and distills it into a draft policy.

T91585 is also blocked waiting on this project. I'd still like to be added as an admin for that tool.

Would this task be a good topic for the Wikimedia-Developer-Summit (2017) ? If so, the deadline to submit new proposals is next Monday, October 31: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_Summit/Call_for_participation

In T87730#2748277, @Qgil wrote:

Would this task be a good topic for the Wikimedia-Developer-Summit (2017) ? If so, the deadline to submit new proposals is next Monday, October 31: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_Summit/Call_for_participation

If the RfC discussion is still open in January then I will have failed the community and my team's quarterly goals.

The RfC vote on meta has been closed by @MarcoAurelio:

The results of the vote are as follows:

• The proposal to enact the "Tool Labs right to fork policy" and form a committee to help oversee the policy. With 29 votes in favor and 2 votes against the proposal passes with a 93.54% approval.
• The proposal to enact the "Tool Labs abandoned tool policy" and form a committee to help oversee the policy. With 19 votes in favor and 4 votes against, the proposal passes with 82.60% of approval.

The result of this RFC has been concluded using an objective measure: counting votes and calculating the support, so whist this user has voted in this RFC, the results are not altered. —MarcoAurelio 16:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Next steps will be to discuss the initial structure for the volunteer committee to oversee the new policies and bootstrap that committee. Minor changes to the policies themselves will be needed to incorporate the approved committee system.

The final step in this initial process is for me to write up the outcome of the various votes and polls and announce the formation of the initial committee. Then the committee can get started on their work to flesh out the skeleton policies and start working with the Tool Labs community. It would be nice to get these final parts resolved before the 2nd birthday of this task. :)

Committee announced: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/labs-announce/2017-January/000203.html

Created Toolforge-standards-committee and kicked off discussion of T156075: Figure out how communications and meetings will work for the Tool Labs standards committee