Hi, >this is the whole point of making the Uploader field optional. When absent, it >means that every team member is equally in chage for the packag
Ah no, please not! At least not with what I understand as "in charge of". Let's say someone joins the Python packaging team, and uploads a package without an Uplaoders entry. Now I am in charge of this package. What does this entail? Do I constantly have to monitor upstream? Do I, personally, get all the maintainer duties? And everyone else in the team as well? That won't work. I don't want all maintainer duties for all the thousands of packages under the Python team, and if "everyone" is in charge, then noone is in charge. Instead, if noone cares enough to put on the "in charge" hat, the package should be dropped from the team. Please also note that pretty much all the maintainer tooling assumes things to be that way – for example, my DDPO lists team packages I am responsible for, so I can check on them doing my maintainer duties on behalf of the team. I may have missed essential parts of the discussion, but as I see it, making the Uoploaders field optional, with the semantics described above, would *ensure* that all team maintained packages fly under the radar, contrary to what it should do. So, how about put a clear definition of the Uploaders field in the policy instead, in regard of what the duties of the Uploaders are? -nik
