On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:57 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:13 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > 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?) > > > > > > > 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. > > I'm not actually sure how to accomplish "collective" maintainership, in > the sense that you want it. What I had in mind was to let one of * perl-sig or * an "alias" (whatever this would be) to a group of people to own a package. or * an explicit list of "perl seniors" to own the package. I thought, at minimum the latter was technically possible. > Nor do I really want to lock them down via > ACLs so only perl-sig elites can touch them. > > I think the packages still need a primary maintainer, and then can have > as many co-maintainers as desired. Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support 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
