> do the right thing, this enters the old loop of asking: What do we aim at > anyway? It would be a promise that we believe the packagers do the right > thing. It's not individuals who promise something, it's the entire FE > project which makes the promise. And when we do that, users should also be > able to rely on the project to maintain the full set of packages when a > packager doesn't respond [in time] or when a package is officially > orphaned. This brings us back to a security response team of You set the requirements for the fedora extras project quite high. So in that case we should try to add as little packages as possible. > volunteers. It simply doesn't work to let some packagers extend a legacy > branch with new packages when that might result in increased maintenance > requirements for the rest of the project either immediately or some time > later. Ok, but it also apply to new packages. I think it changes a little the scope of the fedora extras project, in my opinion. Not that I think that it is a bad idea, and indeed having such a goal would avoid the 'dumping ground' issue. But it implies a change in the process of acceptance of new packages. Indeed if a goal is 'support every package, and substitute to packagers when they leave' then a packager should take into account the burden he may leave to the whole project when he leaves, and that changes a lot the rules of the game. If this is agreed, for example, the packages providing duplicate functionnalities should be avoided unless there is a very good reason. Also complex packages that are hard to maintain should be avoided. And another thing that could be nice in that case would be to search for co-maintainers when the package is reviewed, and only accept if there are enough people ready to takeover if the packager leaves, and verify that there is no potential co-maintainer who accepts to be a fail-over for too much projects as the same time. And maybe also it would be good if the acceptance of new fedora extras member would be conditional on them accepting to be fail-over maintainer for existing packages, especially those with few failover packagers. If there aren't such changes in guidelines/procedures/institutions, we won't be able to achieve the reuirements you propose above. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
