On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:00:15 +0200
Tobias Nygren <tnn@NetBSD.org> wrote:

> Now that there seems to be a consensus that it is a good idea
> to formalise this, and that exclusive maintainership can be bad
> for many noncritical/leaf packages because it results in
> unnecessary e-mail overhead and delays, how about this scheme:
> 
> 1) "weak" maintainership declared the usual way as:
> 
> MASTER_SITES=	...
> 
> MAINTAINER=	user@NetBSD.org
> HOMEPAGE=	...
> 
> 2) exclusive or special maintainership declared as:
> 
> MASTER_SITES=	...
> 
> # Some comment here. It's a free-form field.
> MAINTAINER=	user@NetBSD.org
> HOMEPAGE=	....
> 
> 3) "abandoned" maintainership declared as:
> 
> MAINTAINER=	pkgsrc-users@NetBSD.org
> 
> The absence of the comment above MAINTAINER would mean that updating
> without asking is allowed. Anyone can step up and steal weak
> maintainership of an abandoned package. If people care strongly about
> what's going on with their packages they should either
> 
> 1) read pkgsrc-changes@
> or
> 2) Add a comment field to their packages
> 
> This scheme is good because:
> 
>  o most packages can be left untouched
>  o the comment field is flexible
>  o promotes collaboration
>  o many packages currently have MAINTAINERs who are not NetBSD
>    developers. They would formally be recognised as weak maintainers.

I like your suggestion. Count my vote for this one.

-- 
Juan Romero Pardines	- The NetBSD Project
http://plog.xtrarom.org	- NetBSD/pkgsrc news in Spanish