On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:39 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:16:22 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > On 08.01.2008 22:53, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > Perhaps one option would be for non-programmer packagers to team up with > > > a programmer/sponsor to take on the task of package maintenance? > > > > Don't put more bureaucracy or hurdles in the way. That won't scale and > > will frustrate people and some will feel a second-class citizen > > Not just that, it is completely unrealistic to hope that there would be > enough volunteers to fill the "programmer/sponsor" role. That's true, but my answer is different than yours: I feel the current sponsorship/tutor/mentor model is dead, because the infrastructure and the packaging workflow are not in a shape suitable for such a model to work out and because some "maintainers" are unwilling to team up. > > What > > IMHO would be good instead of what you outline: groups of people (SIGs) > > a package-monkey can contact if he needs help to fix or improve > > something needs programming skills. > > Is it necessary to increase complexity of the Fedora Project's structure > by adding lots of small SIGs like that? Why not? They collect people with common interests. IMO, a good thing. But, as the perl-sig issue (JPO AWOL) in late last year demonstrated, the real issue which is preventing such groups from working out on collaborating on package maintenance, is Fedora's infrastructure (esp. ACLs). Ralf _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
