treewide: srgom from meta.maintainers

[SuperSandro2000]

The github account has been inactive for 4+ years so I have no hope that the person is coming back.

Description of changes

I also don't agree with the closing of #337369. The account has been inactive for over 4 years and at this point we are just lying about the maintenance status of the packages.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[JohnRTitor]

at this point we are just lying about the maintenance status of the packages

Exactly.

[bendlas]

I also don't agree with the closing of #337369.

Figures. This PR has almost all of the same problems as that one:

• no link to any kind of overarching consensus or at least discussion of how maintainer inactivity is to be handled and how that would justify this removal
• no thank you or other personal note to the maintainer being removed (even as a standardized text block)
• no advice on how to pick maintainership back up
• just an off the cuff remark from supersandro2000, and one that could be read as disparaging at that
• otherwise just the standard PR template, geared towards package builds

I don't want this to be the way we treat our maintainers. Even long-time inactive ones. Even if they might never read it.

[superherointj]

@bendlas I understand you want to control the format of writing the request for removal of maintainers for reasons of how you think it would make the inactive maintainer feel better. IMO, the way you are approaching this is bad. Like you have pinged me 10 times for a past that is gone, instead of tackling the future. Here you have the present. But so far, your ideal template of notification is not yet settled. Go pursue that, open your RFC for this and debate to exhaustion there.

The upkeep action being taken here is because these INACTIVE maintainers create issues like delayed reviews/merges, unknown status of upkeep of packages, packages not getting removed when broken because the inactive maintainer is still there.

If you don't have the experience to understand this, stop bothering the people that can understand this. You are not helping in doing that (closing multiple valid PRs, resurrecting merged PRs, etc). And the people that do work (of reviews/merging/assuming responsibility) are already spread too thin if you don't realize it.

[Artturin]

Squash merged with a better commit msg which should address most of @bendlas issues.

treewide: Retire srgom from meta.maintainers

The GitHub account has been inactive for 4+ years.

This is sadly necessary due to the delays in reviews/merges when others are waiting for the requested maintainers to review the PR.

Instructions for re-adding once you return https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/tree/master/maintainers#how-to-become-a-maintainer

We appreciate your past and future contributions.