time for perl 5.10.x in devel?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:57 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:13 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:04 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:00 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:00 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 04:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > > > Can't we agree upon to collectively maintain these "soon to be
> > > > > > orphaned"
> > > > > > packages in general? (Q: Who is "we" - perl-sig "seniors"? Everybody
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > maintains, say, more than 10 perl-modules?)
> > > > > 

> > IMO, this doesn't encourage "perl-sig seniors" to work on these
> > packages, because it doesn't make the difference between "collectively
> > maintained" packages and packages being maintained by "individuals who
> > will shoot" when touching your packages apparent.
> 
> I'm not actually sure how to accomplish "collective" maintainership, in
> the sense that you want it.
What I had in mind was to let one of
* perl-sig 
or
* an "alias" (whatever this would be) to a group of people  
to own a package.
or 
* an explicit list of "perl seniors"
to own the package.

I thought, at minimum the latter was technically possible.

>  Nor do I really want to lock them down via
> ACLs so only perl-sig elites can touch them.
> 
> I think the packages still need a primary maintainer, and then can have
> as many co-maintainers as desired.
Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support collective maintainership ://

Ralf