> > Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I draw a clear separation between exclusive > > owners and maintainers. > > Maybe we can agree on "maintainer" than "owner" - I did not mean > exclusive ownership, and I apologize if I gave that impression. > [...] > Agreed; but the maintainer should at least have a chance to say > something, or be +noisy on issues at very least. I completely agree > code dictatorship is bad, and I've seen it harm open source, and > business code bases *a lot*.
Ok, so we do agree after all :) To elaborate a bit, I think the word "owner" is too strong and would easily give those "owners" the impression that they have full power over their respective modules. It is important to stress that code inside the CPython repository (or the stdlib one, once it is split) can be modified by any core developer with sufficiently good reasons. It is even more important to stress it when including a new module in the stdlib (and to refuse external maintainership). Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
