time for perl 5.10.x in devel?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:05 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:40:15AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 03:58 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> > > Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support collective maintainership ://
> > 
> > Its a technicality. There is no difference in rights or permissions
> > between primary maintainers and comaintainers, except that the packagedb
> > requires there be a primary.
> 
> I think that Ralf point is not about having many comaintainers, but
> group comaintainers. Looks like the packagedb doesn't allow that. 
Almost. 

What I wanted to find is how Fedora supports and destinguishes:

a) a "principal" w/ several co-maintainers under his directions
b) "free for a specific group with changing members" 
  e.g. free for perl-sig, free for FPG, free for "sponsors".
c) "free for anybody" (free for any Fedora all CLA-signors) 
d) "orphaned"

My understanding of what Spot wrote is: Fedora doesn't support b) and
c). He can't avoid folding them into a).

IMO, this lets appear "collective maintainership" as a "closed
group/intriguing circle", because doesn't let appear such packages as
"open for interested volunteers", but implies explicit "appointment" and
explict knowledge about how somebody made it into such a "circle".

Or differently: one year ahead, nobody will remember these packages are
open, because they can't be distinguished from the usual "closed
circles" maintaining packages otherwise.

Ralf