On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 16:36 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > But I'm wondering: There were no replies to my initial mail on this > topic besides the one from Toshio. I can interpret this now as > > 1) comaintainership in this extend is stupid. That so obvious that > people don't even replied to the mail. > > 2) comaintainership in this extend is exactly what people want. All > details and ideas were laid down in that mail and nothing was wrong. So > people didn't reply to it. Or 3) people just haven't read it yet. I'm guilty of 3. That email hit the lists while I was on vacation, so I must have missed it when I was playing catch-up. But I've read it now :) > In other words: I'd like to get a bit more feedback on this topic before > we actually start working further on co-maintainership in this extend. I > especially would like to hear some comments from new and old FESCo > members... > > I'd also appreciate small "I like the whole idea and the concept, please > start working further on it, and I'll comment on individual details when > they get discussed." mails. I personally do like the concept. I think co-maintainership is both beneficial and important. And yes, I plan on comment more as individual details come out. Overall, I think what is documented in that page is a pretty good start. Some of the questions definitely need answering (like tiers, and whether co-maintainers can approve other things, etc) but I think they're a bit too far out to discuss them right now. We need to get bugzilla auto-CC fixed and the new VCS and package database in place first, and those aren't small things. josh -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
