On 20.12.2007 15:01, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > 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. I'm all for "colaborative maintainership,"(I'd call it wiki-style maintenance effort), but I don't think that means we need to remove all things that protect the security of the bits we provide. Opening CVS more sounds to me like having a club house with all the valuable things that were created over the past years in it and all inner doors unlocked where every just approved club member gets a key to the entrance. Would you do that in a club with over 500 members where it's not that hard to become a club member? > However, I find coupling it to NewMaintainerContainment would void most > of the benefits PackageACLOpening opens, because it ties access to a > small group ("sponsors"). See f13's post, it's not about sponsors, they are just a example and a group of contributers we trust. I agree with f13 that the group needs to be bigger then just sponsors (albeit I afaics want it a bit smaller then what f13 thinks about) > 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]. Sounds good -- maybe that could be added to NewMaintainerContainment, as the changes that are needed for that are likely similar? > [...] CU thl -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
