On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:05 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:40:15AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 03:58 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support collective maintainership :// > > > > Its a technicality. There is no difference in rights or permissions > > between primary maintainers and comaintainers, except that the packagedb > > requires there be a primary. > > I think that Ralf point is not about having many comaintainers, but > group comaintainers. Looks like the packagedb doesn't allow that. Almost. What I wanted to find is how Fedora supports and destinguishes: a) a "principal" w/ several co-maintainers under his directions b) "free for a specific group with changing members" e.g. free for perl-sig, free for FPG, free for "sponsors". c) "free for anybody" (free for any Fedora all CLA-signors) d) "orphaned" My understanding of what Spot wrote is: Fedora doesn't support b) and c). He can't avoid folding them into a). IMO, this lets appear "collective maintainership" as a "closed group/intriguing circle", because doesn't let appear such packages as "open for interested volunteers", but implies explicit "appointment" and explict knowledge about how somebody made it into such a "circle". Or differently: one year ahead, nobody will remember these packages are open, because they can't be distinguished from the usual "closed circles" maintaining packages otherwise. 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
