Steven Watanabe
AMDG
On 12/05/2013 09:36 AM, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
======== Proposal ========
My proposal goes further than Beman's and gives "Community maintainership" to all but the most well-maintained libraries. Each library would still have a named maintainer and this would be their role:
<snip>
This wouldn't help anything. Every effort to create a group that does general maintenance in the past has fizzled out when most of the participants lose interest. If we can't even manage this for a few libraries that have no active maintainer at all, it's completely hopeless to try to establish it for even more libraries.
And yet other large open-source projects manage it no problem. Perhaps people are scared of getting the same reception that Stephen Kelly got. If we refine my proposal to make it a right, rather than a responsibility of the community to apply patches to any library then we avoid the workload issue you anticipate. Without that responsibility, increasing the number of libraries the community team are allowed to change doesn't increase their workload as they can change as little or as much as they want. Alex -- Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)