I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I'm not sure I'm in favor of it. It certainly beats a company using a shared account against policy to allow for multiple maintainers. On the other hand, what are the practical use cases here? As Kevin and Zbigniew said in https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 , interest-based groups instead of employer-based groups seem like a better approach. Seems like the main place this would be used is when the org is the upstream project, and even then, an interest-based group open to the broader community seems more in the Fedora spirit. So to address the specific questions: > Should such groups require FESCo approval? Yes. These groups should be exceptional cases. > If so, what would be requirements to approve/deny? The group must represent something for with there is no broader community interest. (e.g. I'm interesting in maintaining packages produced by FunnelFiascCorp, but there's no broader FunnelFiasco SIG because it's not a broader thing like weather or program management) > Should we require some documentation? ie, should the group have to make > a doc/wiki page explaining what it's for and how to reach group owners > in case of problems? No, because it won't be maintained. (I'd like to say yes, but I know better) The fact that it's a group means we can see who the group members are and thus can figure out how to contact them if needed. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
