Here's some more recent activity from them about 3.5 months ago that isn't picked up on that active users script: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/nodejs/2015-July/000192.html

Also, they're the owners of that nodejs list. Who assumes control of that if it turns out that they're no longer active? Maybe it would be a good idea to have more than one owner for lists?

http get https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw user==patches category==pkgdb rows_per_page==1 page==1

The output shows that he recently (29, september) approved two new comaintainers to the nodejs-async package. And he accepts [[comaintainers|https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches]].
Besides, the policy requires two failed attempts to contact the maintainer, and you only waited one week.

I want to do that, but for that I need access to the packages.

Considering that patches maintains most of the nodejs stack, I'd rather not transfer ownership of that task to someone who got sponsored 4 months ago through the comaintainership process.
Moreover, it looks like you didn't request ACLs to the packages, and most of them have comaintainers/packages administrators, there's no rush.

Please consider comaintaining these packages, he has a deep expertise with node packaging (he actually drafted the guidelines).

Unless, we reach the end of the process, I'm -1 for this.

vjancik,
Stop requesting ACL's on all the available nodejs packages in Fedora. I have denied your requests. Why you want to become the co-owner of all nodejs packages? I already said use Copr.

I think you should check the policies, learn when to use them. I am giving -1 vote to any request done by vjancik here. You have created a biggest spam to scm-commits list.

'''hguemar:'''

I did not suggest you transfer the ownership to me, anyone active will do (read my ticket again please). I suggested nodejs needs to be updated in Fedora, and the owner is unavailable. I wanted to raise awareness to that. As for not following procedure, I anticipated this process will take at least a week whether I post the ticket now or in a week.

'''pnemade:'''

I sent commit ACLs, not trying to co-own them. I knew it was a bad idea, but hey hguemar suggested it.

As for the other reason, nodejs packages are tightly interdependent. If you update one one of them most other are going to break, because of version specific (or ~) dependencies. That's why an update from nodejs package version from 6+ months ago, will require an update to almost all of the packages. As I wasn't sure which exactly, I sent requests to all.

Sorry if you got spammed. Not my intention.

What alternative do you suggest? I could have just sent the ACLs to nodejs and npm, get those updated, but then everything else would break.

I think hguemar mean to say that request commit access for patches's packages and not for all the nodejs packages in Fedora.

Generally such major version update in Fedora is done by some experienced packager who also have provenpackager access granted to him. That way you don't need to request commit access to all required packages. Or you can call for respective package owners to rebuild their packages in a side tag on devel list. Those package owners will then build their packages against newer version of nodejs in sidetag. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Adding_Side_Build_Targets_SOP

For becoming provenpackager we have https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy

TC commented on a bug less than a month ago:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082298

Today there are almost 1000 email notifications on scm-commits list. Wish vjancik would have understood the process before applying for all the nodejs package commit access. I think including me, 4 more people have mass denied vjancik commit access request.

From today's FESCo meeting:
Since there is still some activity from TC, vjancik should "follow the process" and try to contact TC before proceeding further. We suggest that they work out a way to update the Node.js stack in Fedora ? (+7)