RE: [PEAR-DEV] granting temporary permission for releasing packages that need a new release

On 7 Aug 2003 at 10:53, Lukas Smith wrote: > > From: Pierre-Alain Joye [mailto:paj@pearfr.org] > > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:33 AM > > > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:31:01 +0200 > > Martin Jansen <mj@php.net> wrote: > > > > > I'm strongly against this. The lead developers of a package are > > > responsible for their code and its release cycle. Having some > > > other people that may roll new releases as well, will result in a > > > big > mess. > > > > > > Remember: PEAR does only provide the infrastructure, but every > package > > > is some sort of independent sub-project. > > > > Fully agreed here. > > I don't full agree here. > PEAR wants to leave the responsibilities in terms of decision making > etc with the lead developer. This is the model we offer and this is > the model we should pursue in the future. > > However we also claim to provide high quality packages to our user > base. If open bug reports linger, if fixes to known issues are > committed to CVS but no new releases are made then we have a problem. > > Therefore there must be sort of an implicit contract, that the > sovereignty in decision making requires that the developer also > maintain his package properly. For now I would like to keep the > definition of "properly" a soft one, which is decided upon on a case > by case basis. Would maybe naming a second lead-person for the respective projects not fit it as a first step? This way the original lead can still work on his package as soon as he finds the time. But meanwhile it would be possible for someone other to take over the responsibility for the time the original package lead can't work on the package or is even unavailable via email at all. As a second step, if there are leads that don't find the time in the next XX month, maybe we should encourage those leads to give the leadership to someone new who has the time and is willing to do the job. If the lead don't respond at all for a longer time maybe we have to think about "forcing" a package-takeover by somebody else to ensure quality (as stated above). What do you think? Stefan