concept of package "ownership"

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 07/02/2010 06:34 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700
> Jesse Keating<jkeating at j2solutions.net>  wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely,
>>> that'd also make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a
>>> problem. You see a problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the
>>> package has an active maintainer or not?
>>
>> While I agree that package "ownership" should not feel possessive,
Should the name "owner" be an issue, why not call them by what they 
actually are, "maintainer" and "co-maintainer"?

> 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.
Agreed.

> So, while I think we should try and reduce the possessiveness of
> "owning" packages, we still need a group of stewards or whatever for
> packages.
We need groups, with "grouped privileges/acls" etc. It's essentially 
what e.g. the "perl-sig" originally was meant to be.

Unfortunately, technical limitations of Fedora's "packager 
infrastructure" so far have prevented to take full advantage of this 
(c.f. "Petr's" mass acl-changes in recent weeks).

Ralf