On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:42AM -0500, Steve Conklin wrote: > > It was an accident, and I have no hard feelings toward anyone over this, > but I'm not happy that the package ownership process (or lack of one) > allowed this to happen so easily. The policy here is the non responsive maintainer policy. Otherwise the primary maintainer should not be changed. However the redhat folks don't seem to follow this procedure and instead it seems that change in package maintainers owned by people @redhat is done by other procedures, including with more sharing of responsibility over package among groups. I am not sure that there is something that can be done in fedora about that issue. Maybe the exception should be written down explicitly such that people like you who is at redhat and in the community knows who to contact @redhat to follow the fedora rules. Also maybe I am mistaken and there are no specific rules for redhat people, only remnants from the past (like the many agg co-maintainer I have who are certainly not interested). -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
