time for perl 5.10.x in devel?

[Chris Weyl]

On Nov 27, 2007 11:57 AM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Is there a way to enforce group ownership such that perl-sig members
must also be members of cla-done?  If we can do that, it should be a
moot point...  (Transitive property of CLA signing...  heh)

> > > 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.

I think the idea here is more of a way to put a better stamp of
collective ownership here, not enable a lock down to us elites (and
here I thought I was just another plebian<grin>).  While possibly more
symbolic than not, symbolisim is important, and I think it makes sense
to do if we can find a reasonable way.

                              -Chris
-- 
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia