On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 09:15 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 19.12.2007 19:49, Brian Pepple wrote: > > /topic MISC - > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/PackageACLOpening - f13 > > > > /topic MISC - > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/NewMaintainerContainment - > > f13 > > I'd like to ask FESCo to please not realize the PackageACLOpening > proposal without the NewMaintainerContainment. -1 PackageACLOpening is a step into the right direction to colaborative maintainership, to less bureaucracy and to a more efficient and flexible workflow. However, I find coupling it to NewMaintainerContainment would void most of the benefits PackageACLOpening opens, because it ties access to a small group ("sponsors"). That said, I think it should be extended to a more general notion of "groups", e.g. SIGs, <LANG>-specialists, etc., such that groups on people can collaborate on groups of packages[1]. Ralf [1] E.g. perl packages. The perl-SIG recently tried to add "perl-sig" as owner of a larger set of packages whose maintainer got AWOL, but we've been told that the packagedb doesn't support this. We ended up with dividing the dead packages between us, and "informally mutually granting" access. If the NewMaintainerContainment became effective, we probably would have to resort to explicitly adding us to all of our packages (I am talking about several 100s of packages). -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
