[stdlib-sig] Breaking out the stdlib

[Jesse Noller]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Foord <michael at 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