On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:01:16 +0100 Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
However, I find coupling it to NewMaintainerContainment would void most of the benefits PackageACLOpening opens, because it ties access to a small group ("sponsors"). That said, I think it should be extended to a more general notion of "groups", e.g. SIGs, <LANG>-specialists, etc., such that groups on people can collaborate on groups of packages[1].
Ralf
[1] E.g. perl packages. The perl-SIG recently tried to add "perl-sig" as owner of a larger set of packages whose maintainer got AWOL, but we've been told that the packagedb doesn't support this. We ended up with dividing the dead packages between us, and "informally mutually granting" access. If the NewMaintainerContainment became effective, we probably would have to resort to explicitly adding us to all of our packages (I am talking about several 100s of packages).
Please don't think that new maintainer containment is a set in stone proposal. In fact, one of the open questions is who gets added to the set of folks who gain wide access. I want that group to be as big as possible, just not inclusive of new packagers.