Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:42AM -0500, Steve Conklin wrote:
>> It was an accident, and I have no hard feelings toward anyone over this,
>> but I'm not happy that the package ownership process (or lack of one)
>> allowed this to happen so easily.
> 
> The policy here is the non responsive maintainer policy. Otherwise the
> primary maintainer should not be changed. However the redhat folks don't 
> seem to follow this procedure and instead it seems that change in package
> maintainers owned by people @redhat is done by other procedures,
> including with more sharing of responsibility over package among groups.
> 
> I am not sure that there is something that can be done in fedora about 
> that issue. Maybe the exception should be written down explicitly such 
> that people like you who is at redhat and in the community knows who 
> to contact @redhat to follow the fedora rules.
> 
Maybe what could be done is to mark packages a person as maintaining a 
package as part of Red Hat employment (or employment in general) then it 
would be simpler to say no longer working for Company Foo, therefore no 
longer a maintainer of Package Bar.

However, even that's not perfect as other people will leave and maintain 
packages they were paid to work on as part of the greater community.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080606/bfd02120/attachment.bin