Dropping the ownership model
jspaleta at gmail.com
Tue Nov 22 18:55:09 UTC 2011
2011/11/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com>:
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
I can't speak for anyone else. But for me I'm more than willing to see
other contributors work with me to fix things in packages that I
"own." I'll even take the heat for a couple of good faith mistakes if
they commit something that ends up needing to be reworked. People just
have to walk up and talk to me about it and submit a patch. Every time
I get a patch that is sane I ask if they want to be a co-owner. In
fact I've already transferred ownership a couple of times because my
co-owner is more engaged than I am in that packages health.
The only thing stopping a other people from working with me on keeping
my "niche" packages is interested manpower. "requiring" a SIG approach
isn't going to magically make more people interested in keeping the
packages I prioritize cobwebless. You are free to organize a SIG
that does this sort of work and I will happily throw my packages under
the bus and give your SIG some measure of accountability to keep them
maintained without having to lose "ownership" myself.
If you want a SIG approach to be the cultural norm... then prove to
the contributorbase that it works well and start with a subset of
packages that your SIG shepards in a communal approach and expand that
approach. Don't mandate it. Don't lobby for it. DO IT and provide
metrics which show the approach is more sustainable and deals with
high volume bug traffic better.
More information about the devel