On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:40 -0500, 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
What makes you think FESCO is qualified for this?
Of cause there are "maintainer conflicts" where FESCO can help, but in
many cases such conflicts originate from technical issues, one or more
maintainers are unable to solve. In such cases, FESCO can't really help.
> 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?
ACK.
> Why all the overhead of rules early?
One problem I have with both THL's and your "ad-hoq proposal" above, is
them both being strictly connected to "owners".
This completely ignores "competence" and "knowledge domains".
Therefore, instead of seeing a strict "owner"/"co-maintainers"-only
scheme I'd like to see a multi-dimensional "maintainers'
responsibility/privilege" system ("owners/co-maintainers" could be one
dimension of such a system).
E.g. a team of "packaging specialists" being granted "card blanche
privileges" on "packaging issues" or a "team of perl/python/c/c
++/<whatever-language> specialists" being granted "card blanche
privileges" on "<language> issues" etc.
At least to me, e.g. wrt. packaging, in obvious cases, this would spare
me a lot of time, because bugzilla'ing takes much more time than
directly fixing something.
Ralf
--
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
