Re: Module Ownership Rollcall

Marcel van der Boom wrote:

> On 18 feb 2009, at 18:34, Marty Vance wrote:
> 
>>>> The main intent here is that unsolicited commits not be met with   "why
>>>> the hell did you do that, this module is mine!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did that ever happen? If so, people have been very quiet about it.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, it has.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, i would have thought to have heard about it in terms of the  
> repository.
> 
> I do agree though with the concept of 'being responsible for...' or  
> 'maintainership...'. If that should be translated into an ownership  
> type of deal I'm not so sure.
> 
> If anything, we have too little 'commits by different people to the  
> same thing'. I would love too see a good 'fight' over *which features  
> should go in* or *how to implement this* by multiple committers.
> 

"Responsible for" and "maintainership" is the type of role I think 
should be adopted, but "ownership" goes too far for a community effort.

Maintainer(s) should also take on the task of planning for a module's 
future.  Just as the core(s) will have roadmaps, individial extensions 
should also.

As the original post stated, "Extensions whose authors are not open to 
contribution by other parties will be locked in the repository and the 
author will be asked to maintain it privately."

To me, this means any module where "ownership" is asserted should be 
kept out of the Xaraya repository.