On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:30 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > No, that's not how opensource works. You don't work on things after > "upstream" said "not interested".
That is hardly true though - which is why we have 47 different implementations of everything to debate the merits of. :) Besides, if this were truly an "upstream" issue the Council could hardly do anything about it. The solution to this problem isn't annoying crossdev users in the hope that they will pester the crossdev maintainers. In theory they're the main ones impacted by the bug in the first place. Is there a list/etc for crossdev? I'd think that the users and maintainers of crossdev collectively have the biggest vested interest in addressing these issues. They're also the ones who can vouch for how big of a problem this is. Is this having some kind of adverse impact on anybody outside of the crossdev community? If the crossdev maintainers were pushing hundreds of packages to change to accommodate dubious design on their part I could see this being a distro-wide issue. On the other hand, if this is an issue that only impacts crossdev users and maintainers, then I'd think the simplest solution would be let them sort it out. If somebody in the crossdev community does want to sort it out and the problem is package squatting, then that might be a valid reason to escalate. In that case the cleanest solution is to have a crossdev project, have the interested devs step up, hold a vote for the lead, and then respect the lead's role in resolving the issue. Nobody "owns" a package, but in general we should be careful about stepping in and overriding maintainers, especially if nobody is interested in stepping in to take the reins long-term. Rich
