Future owners/ACL choices

[Jesse Keating]

On Sunday 25 February 2007 23:16, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Your example brings up an important but tangential point, however: In
> the merged Core + Extras world (aka allowing community outside of Red
> Hat to maintain "Core" packages) someone within Red Hat could leave Red
> Hat and still want to maintain their packages for Fedora.  In many
> cases, this would be a good thing.  So changing owners should still go
> through some sort of process even when the maintainer involved is from
> within Red Hat (not just have a rel-engineer make the change when the
> Red Hatter takes another job.)

While in theory this sounds good, but in practice I can really see those that 
leave RH or move to a different job within RH not wanting to keep up their 
Fedora packages, and in some cases not be able to communicate that or 
interact with that correctly (@redhat.com email address no longer valid, 
etc..)

While it would be best if the process is followed, there needs to be some room 
for rel-eng interaction.  There may be many packages maintained within Fedora 
purely by assignment.  A RH manager assigns maintainership of given packages 
to given people, from Fedora to RHEL to any other product.  When reassignment 
happens, it would be for the whole tree, not just the RHEL side.  These 
aren't so much 'volunteers' so many of the rules/ideals don't apply.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070226/53042170/attachment.sig>