On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:04 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:00 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:00 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 04:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > Can't we agree upon to collectively maintain these "soon to be > > > > orphaned" > > > > packages in general? (Q: Who is "we" - perl-sig "seniors"? Everybody > > > > who > > > > maintains, say, more than 10 perl-modules?) > > > > > > Sure, this is acceptable to me. I just need to know who the "co > > > maintainers" will be, packages cannot be owned by the perl SIG user. > > Why not? > > Not sure. I think it has to do with the fact that the perl-SIG isn't a > legal entity, and thus, cannot sign the CLA. Hmm, is this a technical limitations of the fedora infrastructure or a legal issue? I would not understand the latter. > As is, its really not an issue, as I don't intend to put acls on > anything, its merely a question of who wants to see the bugzillas > personally as opposed to through the perl-SIG email. So you indent to assign ownership to yourself but to allow perl-sig member to work on your packages? IMO, this doesn't encourage "perl-sig seniors" to work on these packages, because it doesn't make the difference between "collectively maintained" packages and packages being maintained by "individuals who will shoot" when touching your packages apparent. OK, the latter group could apply ACLs, but ... you are loosing the "marketing factor" of "collective maintainership". Ralf -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
