* "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [22/11/2011 19:28] :
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Pro: it enforces responsibility. The way things currently work, it's
relatively obvious whose work it is to fix a given bug.
Con: the thing that kicked off the cleanup thread. A package which has an
maintainer that doesn't know how to fix it, no co-maintainers and that isn't
high-profile enough to grab the attention of a proven-packager will not be
updated/fixed/improved.
Would it be viable to move to something like language SIG based
ownership of packages?
For every single package? Probably not.
FTR, How is this different from co-maintership?
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 ).
While I'm all for having more maintainers and co-maintainers, I'ld worried
that lowering the barrier of entry will lead to packagers who don't have the
skills necessary to fix the problems that their packages will have.
The governing body of the SIG would in essence be the once that would
be
responsible for the components.
For a number of SIGs, this is already the case. As Kevin has said, the KDE
SIG works like this and there's a high sense of ownership in the Perl SIG.
Do you know or want to learn python. Join the python SIG etc...
I'm not convinced that joining a language SIG is going to help you learn said
language. Seeing diffs of spec files go by won't get you very far.
Emmanuel