On 15.02.2007 12:00, Christian Iseli wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:59:24 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
FYI, I reworked the last proposal and some FESCo members looked over it
and seemed to agree with it so far, too. See
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EncourageComaintainership
for details. Please comment.
"at least three maintainers" looks like an awful lot in case of simple
packages. I know it's hard to define "simple", but still...
Remember, that sentence starts with "should" -- there is no must there,
so its okay if there are simple packages that have only two maintainers.
But if there is someone else that is interested in becoming a
co-maintainer then he should be accepted normally.
"Maintainers should work towards getting at least one co-maintainer."
I don't like this too much. [...]
The reasons why I put that there -- co-maintainership is there for a
long time already, but not much used yet, and FESCo wanted to encourage
it more.
And, btw, you missed to quote the second part of that para:
[...]The goal is to have that process mostly automated -- e.g. let a
script parse the owner informations and send out mail list now and then
that contains a list of the packages that do not have enough
co-maintainers yet.[...]
CU
thl
--
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
