On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Foord <mich...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 17:14 -0400, R. David Murray a écrit : >> >>> >>> Actually I believe I heard from someone other than Laura that required >>> options were explicitly rejected. >>> >> >> This is one of the reasons why I'm against exclusive module ownership. >> If a reasonable number of people think a feature would benefit the >> community, the module owner shouldn't be able to veto it on ideological >> (or whatever other personal) grounds. >> >> > > I dislike exclusive module ownership too. We end up in situations where > modules (like ElementTree) are 'owned' by someone who is absent and no-one > else is able to (or dares to) touch the code. > > Michael
There is no such thing as "exclusive" ownership, and there can not be. I am advocating for owners in as much as I'd like (like Georg) someone to assign bugs, patches and other things to for a given module. If an owner, such as ElementTree's chooses to be absent forever, or no longer be involved - then they are replaced. We've all(?) worked in business settings and most of us probably understand the "drawbacks" to "exclusive" ownership. Ergo, that's not what I am advocating. However, having someone be the "thought leader, patch reviewer and guy to send angry emails to when something is so broken it causes convulsions" would be nice. jesse _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
