2011/11/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx>: > What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current > package ownership model? I can't speak for anyone else. But for me I'm more than willing to see other contributors work with me to fix things in packages that I "own." I'll even take the heat for a couple of good faith mistakes if they commit something that ends up needing to be reworked. People just have to walk up and talk to me about it and submit a patch. Every time I get a patch that is sane I ask if they want to be a co-owner. In fact I've already transferred ownership a couple of times because my co-owner is more engaged than I am in that packages health. The only thing stopping a other people from working with me on keeping my "niche" packages is interested manpower. "requiring" a SIG approach isn't going to magically make more people interested in keeping the packages I prioritize cobwebless. You are free to organize a SIG that does this sort of work and I will happily throw my packages under the bus and give your SIG some measure of accountability to keep them maintained without having to lose "ownership" myself. If you want a SIG approach to be the cultural norm... then prove to the contributorbase that it works well and start with a subset of packages that your SIG shepards in a communal approach and expand that approach. Don't mandate it. Don't lobby for it. DO IT and provide metrics which show the approach is more sustainable and deals with high volume bug traffic better. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
