On 07/02/2010 06:34 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700 > Jesse Keating<jkeating@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, >>> that'd also make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a >>> problem. You see a problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the >>> package has an active maintainer or not? >> >> While I agree that package "ownership" should not feel possessive, Should the name "owner" be an issue, why not call them by what they actually are, "maintainer" and "co-maintainer"? > Agreed. While wandering provenpackagers or whoever can assist with > sticky issues, there needs to be a group of people who manage bugs, > build a relationship with upstream, follow upstream development, etc. Agreed. > So, while I think we should try and reduce the possessiveness of > "owning" packages, we still need a group of stewards or whatever for > packages. We need groups, with "grouped privileges/acls" etc. It's essentially what e.g. the "perl-sig" originally was meant to be. Unfortunately, technical limitations of Fedora's "packager infrastructure" so far have prevented to take full advantage of this (c.f. "Petr's" mass acl-changes in recent weeks). Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
