Co-maintainersip policy for Fedora Packages

[Greg Dekoenigsberg]

+1.

Actually, +10000000.

Let's start simple, with the assumption that package maintainers will 
trust one another.  If more complex policies prove to be necessary, let's 
let experience prove that to us.  This will also allow us to shape a 
policy based on our experience with *actual* issues, rather than fears 
about potential issues.

--g

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, seth vidal wrote:

>
> Comaintainership - an alternate policy suggestion:
>
> 1. two(or more) people maintain the package
> 2. they talk to each other if there is a conflict
> 3. if there is a big conflict and they can't work it out, they talk to
> fesco for resolution
> 4. no more rules after this are needed
>
>
> Seriously - why not just make it simple and have all other things
> resolved like we would resolve normal conflicts?
>
> Why all the overhead of rules early?
>
> -sv
>
>
>
> --
> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
> Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------