On 2/23/07, Karsten Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The purpose of the job description is to make it easier for people who maintain packages to get at least some of the work "guaranteed" by their employer. Obviously it is not a guarantee or a contract to support the package. This is where the wording matters. It is just about extending the personal responsibility to the organization. For example, an individual can orphan a package for any reason, and their responsibility is just to announce the orphaning. The same should hold true for an organization.
Do you have buy-in or feedback from organizations at the organizational level on this approach? From manager-like entities who would be making this commitment on behalf of their organization or company? Not to name names or anything..but after FudCon I was on the same flight back with dgilmore, and we had a little chat about EPEL and the contributor landscape for it. It was obvious to both of us that IT people in smaller organizations would very much be interested consumers of this material, but it wasn't clear that they would have organizational support to maintain this material as part of their job. I think some rather valid observations were made concerning the possible reluctance of IT people in a corporate setting to be involved in a maintainership role, exactly because it would appear to be an additional worktime commitment, not supported by their organizations. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
