Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Proposing an EPEL packaging SIG

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

We discussed the proposal a bit at today's EPEL SC meeting; here's a
revised proposal taking into account the suggestions from the meeting
and earlier in this list.

## The SIG
- bstinson pointed out that epel-wranglers was started to address the
same issue, we can resurrect that
- we want to limit the access to epel* branches only, not all branches,
as suggested both here and at the meeting. Any change the epel-
wranglers want to make to the Rawhide branch can be done as a PR
  - the EPEL branch will likely diverge from master over time anyway
- the collaborator permission (available since August, yay) can be used
for such granular access
  - nirik pointed out that collaborators can't yet request new
branches, if the proposal is approved we can work on making the `fedpkg
request-branch` flow support this
  - carlwgeorge suggested getting the group up and running first, and
working on automation later

## Workflow
- no objection that I recall to having epel-wranglers automatically get
access if the Fedora maintainers do not respond (so we can circumvent
needing to do a non-responsive maintainer request)
  - we probably won't have this automated at the beginning, see above
- down the line, epel-wranglers need to decide on what to do with
releases they no longer want to support (e.g. when everyone involved
only cares about epel10 and epel9 and there's a CVE affecting epel8).
the normal orphan process probably works - we announce the package is
being orphaned by the group on epel-devel

Let's continue discussing the proposal in this thread, as suggested
during the meeting.

Thanks all,

-- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/[e-mail]
chat via email: https://delta.chat/
GPG key: 5DCE 2E7E 9C3B 1CFF D335 C1D7 8B22 9D2F 7CCC 04F2