On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:51:32AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/11/2012 09:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>On 01/11/2012 05:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>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.
What about regular PGP key and password changes? Wouldn't perl-sig find guilty
on next clean-up and removed of the ownership?
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.
Only the ones who are rights to commit.
I.e. to sum up: Actually nothing would change to you and nothing
would
change many of the "perl-sig" maintainers.
There would be a problem that nobody would be personally responsible for
a package. Also there could be problems with synchronisation between
unassigned volunteering perl-sig members.
I think it's better when each package is owned by a real person.
-- Petr