Dropping the ownership model

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

As much as we have disagreed on the previous topic we might have similar thoughts here :).

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com>
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:51:31 PM
> Subject: Dropping the ownership model
> 
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
> 
> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence
> would
> make every contributor an "proven packager"?

Well, everyone becoming a proven packager is going too far from the beginning. 
Though I have to say that this approach worked quite good in Mandriva in the past.
I still remember misc telling me "please don't break too much" . For the few years I maintained packages there 
I haven't seen a single case of someone abusing his powers. 

> 
> Would it be viable to move to something like language SIG based
> ownership of packages?

SIGs are quite good idea and making more use of them can help providing more structure when in need of getting help.


> 
> As in lower the barrier of entry of contributor without the need and
> or
> introduction of an package or any sponsorship and have them assigned
> to
> relevant SIG based on language they either know or want to learn. (
> not
> necessarly having to tie packaging with code contribution ).
> 
> The governing body of the SIG would in essence be the once that would
> be
> responsible for the components.

Well SIGs don't really have governing bodies and it is always good to have a concrete name when you look for contacts for some package.
Probably packages can be assigned to person and SIG and they are open for everyone from the SIG but still having a concrete name you can talk to.
Essentially the SIG will be the owner of the package and a person(s) will be listed as something like primary contact(s).

> 
> So as an example a indvidual skilled in Java who would want to join
> the
> project would automatically be assigned to the java SIG which in turn
> would be assigned and managing all Java related components then the
> Java
> SIG based on what ever process/workflow they have decided would
> assign
> to that individual what ever task is needed at current times
> prioritized
> by the knowledge and resource they posses.

As we(Java SIG) have quite similar approach aka someone from the SIG is taking a task
 he wants to work on and do it no matter who is the maintainer/co-maintainers the current 
situation is a bit annoying because people have to collect way too many permissions in pkgdb
and this is either slowing down the process or depending on some provenpackager to push the work.
Such a SIG approach to packaging will definetely make it easier and as long as the packager has
access only to the SIG's packages this should not scare other SIGs because new packager in certain 
SIG wouldn't be able to touch other SIGs packages.

Alexander Kurtakov

> 
> So basically the barrier of entry is no higher than what the
> individual
> wants to learn or knows already as in..
> 
> Do you know or want to learn python. Join the python SIG etc...
> 
> Do you want to learn distribution packaging join the Packaging SIG
> 
> Or the individual would learn how to package components relevant to
> the
> SIG he just joined
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Far off and totally crazy, you are mad!
> 
> What meds are you on can I have some?
> 
> The SIG approach is something that actually might work...
> 
> JBG
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel