>>>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, Rich Freeman wrote:

> I thought we were generally agreed we wanted to get rid of herds.
> The goal wasn't to rename them, but to get rid of them.

> We could have email aliases for bugs so that people can sign up for
> notifications, but they would NOT be considered maintainers.  Of
> course, any would be welcome to become actual maintainers, but as
> far as treecleaning/etc goes the package is unmaintained.

> If we just rename "herd" to "team" then we have the same issue where
> nobody can tell if anybody is taking care of anything because it all
> goes into some nebulous bin full of packages where nobody is
> responsible for anything in particular, and nobody can speak for the
> "team" because it isn't really a team.

> How about "contact" instead of team.  A package could have any
> number of contacts, and they just get CC'ed on bugs, and there is no
> meaning to a contact besides being CC'ed on bugs.  They're never
> assignees - if there is nobody else in metadata besides a contact
> then the assignee is maintainer-wanted.

Now sure it I get this, so can you explain with a concrete example?
Let's say, for a package that currently has <herd>xemacs</herd> in its


Attachment: pgp27zV7X7x44.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to