Re: OF package maintainers please vote: Scope of OF?

[c.]

Hi,

On 10 Jan 2017, at 13:51, Olaf Till <address@hidden> wrote:

> There are two different main concepts proposed for OF:
> 
> 1. Simply maintain a list of packages, hosted elsewhere.
> 
> 2. Continue to execercise some central control onto contained
>   packages, making the package maintainers potentially bound to some
>   majority- or admin-decisions.
> 
> For 2., two subvariants have been proposed:
> 
> 2.1. In addition to the controled packages, maintain a list of
>     independent packages, checked only for some formal structural
>     conformance, which are primarily hosted elsewhere. OF contains
>     'copies' of the external repositories, synchronized at least at
>     release time. The package maintainer has exclusive control, if OF
>     decides to fork the package, a different package name must be
>     used.
> 
> 2.2. Only the controled packages are contained in OF.

I am under the impression that some of my previous comments on this thread have 
been misinterpreted as suggesting version 1.

Actually what I am advocating is something closer to 2.1/2.2:

Packages that are maintained in OF should be controlled and maintained 
cooperatively, 
but we should also maintain a list of packages that are not.

I do volunteer to help with maintainance of both lists.

> If you vote, please indicate which OF package(s) you maintain.


I am (co-)maintainer of:

bim
msh
fpl
ocs
odepkg
mpi
nurbs
secsXd

and of a few more packages that are not part of OF but could be part of the 
"independent packages" list.

c.