Co-maintainersip policy for Fedora Packages

[Hans de Goede]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 January 2007 14:08, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> All packages in Fedora Extras shall normally be maintained by a group of
>> maintainers. Each package normally should have at least three
>> maintainers in total. There is one primary maintainer and a primary
>> maintainer per distribution release (both often will be identical); he
>> should have at least one co-maintainer per release.
> 
> This feels like we're dictating how people should manage their packages.  Why 
> should EVERY package have more than one maintainer?  There are some pretty 
> simple packages out there, does it really need 3?  Do we really want to tell 
> everybody that we don't trust just them, we need to trust 3 of them?  Why is 
> this necessary?
> 

+1, JK words the major part of my issues with this proposal well: 
"dictating how people should manage their packages" I don't like to be 
dictated, I don't like it at all!

Also I find it funny that you (THL) first say:
"Well, my proposal is not that much more complicated:"
And then need a couple of very dense and hard to read paragraphs like 
the one quoted by JK above to explain your policy.

>> Maintainers should hand over packages to 
>> co-maintainers when they have lots of packages to improve the quality,
>> share the load and get people involved.
> 
> again, dictating.  You're saying that just because you own more than a few 
> packages, you're automatically lowering the quality of those packages, or you 
> automatically can't handle the load.  This is a bad and very unfriendly 
> assumption to make.
> 

+1 (But I made that clear already)

Regards,

Hans