On 2023-05-29 10:50, Ben Cotton wrote:
I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I'm not sure I'm
in favor of
it. It certainly beats a company using a shared account against policy
to allow for multiple maintainers. On the other hand, what are the
practical use cases here? As Kevin and Zbigniew said in
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 , interest-based groups instead of
employer-based groups seem like a better approach. Seems like the main
place this would be used is when the org is the upstream project, and
even then, an interest-based group open to the broader community seems
more in the Fedora spirit. So to address the specific questions:
With my Meta hat on, something like this would be useful for us in a few
ways:
- it makes it easier to onboard new internal folks to help out with
package maintenance
- it generally removes toil and makes it harder to forget to add someone
else as admin to the packages
- it makes tools like the packager dashboard more useful, as we'd be
able to track all packages of interest from a single place
If all the packages that an organization maintains are within the same
space, I agree that a traditional SIG would work better, but that
doesn't make a ton of sense in our specific example. Also, full
disclosure: we actually already have a FAS group (see
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10586) that was created a
while ago so that we could make a copr group for packit builds of our
packages (
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/meta/coprs/). We've
refrained from using it for anything else until there's clarity around
desired usage and policies from FESCo.
Cheers
Davide