* Fabio Valentini:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer
<fweimer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
> > packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
> > yet.
> >
> > I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care
of
> > such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until
> > modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until
> > it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I
> > think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
>
> The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be
> specific to modular content.
That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better
name, though.
This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise
semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages
("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome,
or until they are abandoned.
It's still not clear to me what this group is supposed to do.
Does the group produce modular or non-modular content? What would
qualify a package for maintenance by this group?
Why don't we need this in a non-module context? Why do modules require
such a group?
Thanks,
Florian