concept of package "ownership"

[Tom Lane]

Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> writes:
> Jesse Keating <jkeating at j2solutions.net> wrote:
>> While I agree that package "ownership" should not feel possessive, I
>> do strongly feel that there still should be some single person (or
>> team I suppose...) who is ultimately responsible for the package.  A
>> place for bug reports, for autoqa activity, for reviewing potential
>> patches and changes from other people, etc...

> Agreed. While wandering provenpackagers or whoever can assist with
> sticky issues, there needs to be a group of people who manage bugs,
> build a relationship with upstream, follow upstream development, etc. 

Yeah.  There needs to be somebody in the Fedora community with a
long-term commitment to each package.  Perhaps the term "owner" is
politically incorrect but nonetheless there is always going to be
somebody who knows more about that package than anybody else in Fedora.
I think it's counterproductive to downgrade that responsibility,
or even worse pretend that it doesn't matter --- and Kevin's lead
statement in this thread is damn close to pretending that.  Sorry
Kevin, we are not interchangeable parts.

			regards, tom lane