time for perl 5.10.x in devel?

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:13 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:04 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:00 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:00 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 04:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > > Can't we agree upon to collectively maintain these "soon to be
> > > > > orphaned"
> > > > > packages in general? (Q: Who is "we" - perl-sig "seniors"? Everybody
> > > > > who
> > > > > maintains, say, more than 10 perl-modules?)
> > > > 
> > > > Sure, this is acceptable to me. I just need to know who the "co
> > > > maintainers" will be, packages cannot be owned by the perl SIG user.
> > > Why not?
> > 
> > Not sure. I think it has to do with the fact that the perl-SIG isn't a
> > legal entity, and thus, cannot sign the CLA.
> Hmm, is this a technical limitations of the fedora infrastructure or a
> legal issue? I would not understand the latter.

I think its a bit of both, as the SIG can't sign the CLA, and the
infrastructure won't let users who haven't signed the CLA own anything.

> > As is, its really not an issue, as I don't intend to put acls on
> > anything, its merely a question of who wants to see the bugzillas
> > personally as opposed to through the perl-SIG email.
> So you indent to assign ownership to yourself but to allow perl-sig
> member to work on your packages?
> 
> IMO, this doesn't encourage "perl-sig seniors" to work on these
> packages, because it doesn't make the difference between "collectively
> maintained" packages and packages being maintained by "individuals who
> will shoot" when touching your packages apparent.

I'm not actually sure how to accomplish "collective" maintainership, in
the sense that you want it. Nor do I really want to lock them down via
ACLs so only perl-sig elites can touch them.

I think the packages still need a primary maintainer, and then can have
as many co-maintainers as desired.

~spot