>>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> writes: PD> In any case there is one maintainer who has the final word, isn't PD> it? Only by agreement, though. There is no infrastructure in place to enforce anything like this. Which is the entirety of my original point: let the arrangements surrounding each package be determined by those involved in the maintenance of that package. You originally said that you did not think upstream developers should be allowed to be "primary maintainers". Going back to that first reply: ----- PD> After some thinking and looking at some packages, I came to the PD> conclusion that having upstream as primary maintainer in fedora PD> should be avoided if possible. ----- I object to this as a general rule. Not only is there no way to enforce this except by agreement, but it is simply not possible to reasonably make that generalization and I also find it to take a rather dim view of the potentially enormous contributions which could be made by upstream developers if we could only get them interested. Let the maintenance of individual packages be dictated by the maintainers of those packages in the way that best suits the situation. So, is there anyone interested in co-maintaining libssa, or one of the other packages from upstream developers awaiting sponsorship? (I think Kevin/nirik has a list of those somewhere; perhaps he'd be so kind as to post it.) - J< -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
