On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:53:00AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 07/02/2010 09:37 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: > >> It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the > >> privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. > > > > Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almost all > > packages. > > The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers. > > They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. > Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. > Ralf, you need to stop repeating this particular line when I have repeatedly told you that working for Red Hat is not the rationale. The rationale is that a Fedora packager made a request that the packages which the perl-sig was on allow two other packagers to commit to them. Under the mistaken impression that there was a perl-sig that could decide that sort of issue, I had the ticket CC'd to the perl-sig's mailing list for objections. The ticket received one okay and zero don't do it's so after a week I went ahead and made the change. If the person being added had been you in the request, I would have done so as well. Now that I know that there really isn't an actual perl-sig that is capable of yaying or naying this sort of change I wouldn't do it again. Since the last FESCo meeting we also have criteria for judging who needs to approve a mass acl change that's quite simple: Owners and approveacls holders do this. If the owner/approveacl holder does not (through lack of response, largeness of the update, etc) then the decision to authorize goes to FESCo. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpQsCei2Rk5D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
