On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:01:16 +0100 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 freenet de> wrote: > 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. > > Ralf > >  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). Please don't think that new maintainer containment is a set in stone proposal. In fact, one of the open questions is who gets added to the set of folks who gain wide access. I want that group to be as big as possible, just not inclusive of new packagers. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Description: PGP signature