concept of package "ownership"

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:28:09PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> I don't think it really matters what we call it, I just think that
> package maintainers are starting to get a sense of entitlement and I
> feel that's counter productive to the open environment we're used to
> and are trying to help continue to grow.
> 
> The package "owner" gets emails about cvs commits, so they are always
> aware of what's going on and can review the changes to packages they
> maintain. In the event of a discrepancy then the person receiving the
> email obviously has an email account and can easily email the person
> who made the edit in order to extend a friendly inquiry as to the
> change. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.
> 
> I for one welcome co-maintainers because I'm a big fan of
> collaboration and a sense of community, and if I can't trust my fellow
> community member and contributor to help in the maintenance of
> packages that I just so happen to have a bit flipped for in the pkgdb,
> then I'm in the wrong place.

Good points all, Adam.  My personal experience with a couple of my
packages, where for example Matthias Clasen found and stomped a bug,
or Jesse Keating took care of a rebuild when I wasn't around[1], gave
me confidence that fellow contributors have my back, as opposed to
sneaking around behind it.  I prefer to presume goodwill.  At worst
I've caused them to grumble for taking up my slack -- in which case
they know where to find my inbox to complain. :-)

* * *
[1] These happened both when I was a volunteer, and when I was a Red
    Hat employee, FWIW.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com