+1.
Actually, +10000000.
Let's start simple, with the assumption that package maintainers will
trust one another. If more complex policies prove to be necessary, let's
let experience prove that to us. This will also allow us to shape a
policy based on our experience with *actual* issues, rather than fears
about potential issues.
--g
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, seth vidal wrote:
Comaintainership - an alternate policy suggestion:
1. two(or more) people maintain the package
2. they talk to each other if there is a conflict
3. if there is a big conflict and they can't work it out, they talk to
fesco for resolution
4. no more rules after this are needed
Seriously - why not just make it simple and have all other things
resolved like we would resolve normal conflicts?
Why all the overhead of rules early?
-sv
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------
--
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
