Packages with inactive owners orphaned and inactive comaintainers removed

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 01/11/2012 09:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 05:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 04:36:24AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> I was under the impression, it's the perl-sig's intention to have
>>> packages which loose its primary maintainer, to be "colaboratively"
>>> maintained. It's at least how I remember the situation when JPO had
>>> quit and had left 100s of packages behind.
>>>
>>> IIRC, back then, packages having had a co-maintainer had been
>>> assigned to the 1st co-comaintainer or somebody having stood up to
>>> voluneer filling the gap. Those remaining without maintainer were
>>> assigned to "spot as placeholder", because the packagedb wasn't able
>>> to cope with "maintainer == perl-sig".
>>> I guess the packagedb situation hasn't sufficiently improved since then?
>>>
>> Correct. No one has spent any time to allow groups to be owners. This
>> would be a significant rearchitecting so I haven't assigned it as an
>> EasyFix
>> task to anyone who has just arrived in infrastructure.
>>
>> Note that the perl-sig pseudo-user could own the packages if the perl-sig
>> wants to continue maintaining them and doesn't want them orphaned. That
>> works right now. What it wouldn't grant is commit rights to the packages.
>>
> So, pseudo-user wouldn't work well...
I don't see any reason why it would not.

perl-sig mails go to the perl mailing list, anybody interested can 
listen and step in. It's what several persons who are subscribed to the 
perl-list seem to have done for a long time - E.g. I do.

Also, in cases nobody steps up and takes action, you (who is subscribed 
to the perl-list) could step up in any case.

I.e. to sum up: Actually nothing would change to you and nothing would 
change many of the "perl-sig" maintainers.

Ralf