Packages with inactive owners orphaned and inactive comaintainers removed

[Kevin Kofler]

Petr Pisar wrote:
> I don't think group responsibility works. The result is every group
> memeber says it does somebody else and then bugs will never get fixed.

Group responsibility has been working fine for KDE SIG ever since its 
inception with the Core-Extras Merge in Fedora 7. No matter who the official 
primary maintainer is, the core KDE packages are de facto all SIG-maintained 
and we all feel responsible for them. I don't see why such a model wouldn't 
work for other SIGs nor why we still don't have pkgdb support for this (all 
the core KDE packages should probably be owned by a kde-sig group, and a 
bunch of KDE-related packages comaintained by the SIG).

> Once you get your packages for free modifications by a group, then you
> cannot expect they do not divert from your packaging standards.

Of course you need to accept some compromises, like in any other team-
maintained code. So it helps to agree on a SIG-wide standard. But I don't 
see why this would be a problem for specfiles any more than for upstream 
projects, many of which are team-maintained. (In fact, the whole purpose of 
the Fedora packaging guidelines is to have a common standard for packages, 
but some stylistic issues are deliberately left unspecified there and should 
be agreed on in the SIG.)

        Kevin Kofler