Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe what could be done is to mark packages a person as maintaining a package as part of Red Hat employment (or employment in general) then it would be simpler to say no longer working for Company Foo, therefore no longer a maintainer of Package Bar.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 theprimary maintainer should not be changed. However the redhat folks don't seem to follow this procedure and instead it seems that change in packagemaintainers 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.
However, even that's not perfect as other people will leave and maintain packages they were paid to work on as part of the greater community.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature