* "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [22/11/2011 19:28] : > > What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current > package ownership model? Pro: it enforces responsibility. The way things currently work, it's relatively obvious whose work it is to fix a given bug. Con: the thing that kicked off the cleanup thread. A package which has an maintainer that doesn't know how to fix it, no co-maintainers and that isn't high-profile enough to grab the attention of a proven-packager will not be updated/fixed/improved. > Would it be viable to move to something like language SIG based > ownership of packages? For every single package? Probably not. FTR, How is this different from co-maintership? > As in lower the barrier of entry of contributor without the need and or > introduction of an package or any sponsorship and have them assigned to > relevant SIG based on language they either know or want to learn. ( not > necessarly having to tie packaging with code contribution ). While I'm all for having more maintainers and co-maintainers, I'ld worried that lowering the barrier of entry will lead to packagers who don't have the skills necessary to fix the problems that their packages will have. > The governing body of the SIG would in essence be the once that would be > responsible for the components. For a number of SIGs, this is already the case. As Kevin has said, the KDE SIG works like this and there's a high sense of ownership in the Perl SIG. > Do you know or want to learn python. Join the python SIG etc... I'm not convinced that joining a language SIG is going to help you learn said language. Seeing diffs of spec files go by won't get you very far. Emmanuel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
