closing out old bugs of unmaintained releases

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 13:14 +0100, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 01/09/2008 12:22 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > So do we have a nebulous group of 'programmers with free time' and call
> > upon them as an when they're needed, or do we have a programmer sign up
> > to 'own' a package in conjunction with the 'packager'?
> > 
> > I favour the latter, for much the same reason as we have specific
> > package owners in the first place rather than a free-for-all¹:
> 
> Why not both?  This way the not as popular packages may have a chance of 
> getting fixes from someone when needed.

Absolutely, but then we really are digressing into the "WTF happened to
teamwork" discussion.

I think there should be a programmer who signs up to be responsible for
each package. As a separate issue, I think that ACLs should be abolished
and anyone who _wants_ to help (and has executed the CLA and is trusted
enough to have been sponsored and given an account) should be
_permitted_ to help.

I was trying to avoid conflating the two -- there is merit in having
named individuals who are listed as having taken responsibility for
certain things, as well as _allowing_ people to help out wherever they
like in a more informal fashion. It's not strictly an either-or choice.

-- 
dwmw2