On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Robert Scheck <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >> On Thursday, 29 January 2009 at 21:51, Robert Scheck wrote: >> > With which benefit, if we remove the right to package mantainers to forbid >> > provenpackager commits except for some special canditates needing FESco? If >> > everybody can touch anything, why a co-maintainer? >> >> Well, even with provenpackagers, it's not like they will start committing >> left and right into other people's packages. A co-maintainer is expected >> to be the first person to step in when the other maintainer is unable to >> do his job. > > I was thinking here about to skip the maintainer/co-maintainer stuff at > all. Just one big bucket having everything in without different permissings > or roles. A maintainer[1] is (supposed to be) more that somebody with commit access to the package He/she deals with bugs, coordinate stuff with upstream, etc. >> I'd also make it mandatory for provenpackagers to be members of at least >> one SIG like KDE, Server, Games etc., i.e. ones that deal with certain >> group of software packages so that their area of expertise is at least >> somewhat defined. > > Interesting idea. But to which SIG would you assign me when looking to my > wiki page, my interests and which packages I'm maintaining? Or do I need to > found my own SIG for that then? I don't need to be a provenpackager, but I > am also playing theoretical scenarios. Well being in some random SIG does not prove anything. Again I still think that the only problem that is to be solved here is not the "security issues" but that some people trying to block their packages for whatever reason. 1: If we want maintainers and not "package monkeys" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
