More feedback on co-maintainership please (Was : Re: Ideas for Co-maintainership in Extras)

[Josh Boyer]

On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 16:36 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> But I'm wondering: There were no replies to my initial mail on this
> topic besides the one from Toshio. I can interpret this now as
> 
> 1) comaintainership in this extend is stupid. That so obvious that
> people don't even replied to the mail.
> 
> 2) comaintainership in this extend is exactly what people want. All
> details and ideas were laid down in that mail and nothing was wrong. So
> people didn't reply to it.

Or 3) people just haven't read it yet.

I'm guilty of 3.  That email hit the lists while I was on vacation, so I
must have missed it when I was playing catch-up.  But I've read it
now :)

> In other words: I'd like to get a bit more feedback on this topic before
> we actually start working further on co-maintainership in this extend. I
> especially would like to hear some comments from new and old FESCo
> members...
> 
> I'd also appreciate small "I like the whole idea and the concept, please
> start working further on it, and I'll comment on individual details when
> they get discussed." mails.

I personally do like the concept.  I think co-maintainership is both
beneficial and important.  And yes, I plan on comment more as individual
details come out.

Overall, I think what is documented in that page is a pretty good start.
Some of the questions definitely need answering (like tiers, and whether
co-maintainers can approve other things, etc) but I think they're a bit
too far out to discuss them right now.  We need to get bugzilla auto-CC
fixed and the new VCS and package database in place first, and those
aren't small things.

josh