On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 13:14 +0100, Christopher Aillon wrote: > On 01/09/2008 12:22 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > So do we have a nebulous group of 'programmers with free time' and call > > upon them as an when they're needed, or do we have a programmer sign up > > to 'own' a package in conjunction with the 'packager'? > > > > I favour the latter, for much the same reason as we have specific > > package owners in the first place rather than a free-for-all¹: > > Why not both? This way the not as popular packages may have a chance of > getting fixes from someone when needed. Absolutely, but then we really are digressing into the "WTF happened to teamwork" discussion. I think there should be a programmer who signs up to be responsible for each package. As a separate issue, I think that ACLs should be abolished and anyone who _wants_ to help (and has executed the CLA and is trusted enough to have been sponsored and given an account) should be _permitted_ to help. I was trying to avoid conflating the two -- there is merit in having named individuals who are listed as having taken responsibility for certain things, as well as _allowing_ people to help out wherever they like in a more informal fashion. It's not strictly an either-or choice. -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
