enforce co-maintainers (was: Re: next FESCo meeting agenda.)

[Jima]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 15:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Well, should we try to enforce co-maintainers in the longer term? E.g. a
>> rule "each package must have at least one primary maintainer and one
>> co-maintainer"?
>>
>
> That'll just make the barrier to addition higher.
>
> I'd say we don't mandate it but make sure all the bits are there for it
> to be encouraged :)

  +1 to that.
  I can't agree with mandating a co-maintainer for every package.  I do, 
however, certainly like the idea of the infrastructure to support 
co-maintainership being in place.  I used to maintain various packages 
before they were added to Extras (by others, mind); that gives me 
something of an advantage when working with that package.  I'd be happy to 
apply for co-maintainership for those packages.
  As an aside, as I see more emails pour in on this subject, I'd like to 
respond to Mike McGrath's "task force" suggestion: In a more broad sense, 
I think that works, but if there's someone with a more active 
knowledge/interest in the package, I feel they're a better candidate to be 
tinkering with it.  If there isn't, though, then the task force idea isn't 
a bad one.  But doesn't that kind of describe the Security Team?

      Jima