Co-maintainersip policy for Fedora Packages

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Toshio Kuratomi schrieb:
> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 13:59 +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>> On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 17:59 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> === Disputes ===
>>> [...]
>> I also tend to think that the suggested mechanism will push us toward a
>> democracy to some degree instead of a meritocracy. I guess I should bite
>> the bullet and say it: The bureaucracy looks too much like Debian to me.
> There needs to be a dispute policy of some kind, though. 

Actually, that probably should be a general policy, independent of the
comaintainership stuff. But I mentioned it there for now until we have
one, as it seemed the right place.

> [...]
>> I quite like other parts of the proposal, and the only other part that
>> makes me worry a little is the three-maintainers-per-package part. I
>> can't say much about other packages, with the kind of packages that I
>> am/was involved in maintaining, two is usually quite enough. Three or
>> more maintainers will only make things more complicated.
> 
> I read that as two maintainers (one primary, one co-maintainer) but thl
> would need to clarify.

Three in total for all supported dists [all would mean F(current),
F(current-1), F(devel) and EPEL] and two per release.

>  In general, I think having more co-maintainers
> would be beneficial to most packages.

Strongly agreed. Actually for *my* packages I consider (not more yet)
even a more free, wiki-style approach. E.g. something like "if you think
something should be fixed, feel free to fix it in cvs. But please leave
building the packages and major updates up to the maintainers"

>  thl outlines the benefits in the
> policy draft.  The disadvantage is the increased chance of disputes
> between maintainers.

We can at any time adjust the policy if people are unhappy with it (e.g.
if it results in to many disputes).

CU
thl