On 12/14/21 9:47 AM, Mario Carneiro wrote:
Of late I haven't had much time to devote to PR reviews though, so it
will need more than just me if we want to keep the queue flowing. I
think Jim Kingdon should take point on iset.mm <http://iset.mm>
maintenance, and others should speak up if they want to participate
more in maintenance.
I don't object to being listed for iset.mm but I don't think I should be
the only one who can approve pull requests which touch it. For all the
usual "avoid single points of failure" reasons.
It's a possibility, but I don't think we need to make the structures
unnecessarily rigid. Most of our contributors are able to work well
together without a heavy coordination framework and I'd like to keep
it that way, at least until experience suggests that more structure
will help more than hinder.
I know this was written in a slightly different context, but that's
roughly how I feel about whether I am "iset.mm maintainer" or
co-maintainer or what. The number of people who have attempted to
contribute to iset.mm is not large and I'd only be excited about
formalized maintainer structures if we thought it would encourage rather
than discourage contributions (especially from people who have not yet
contributed to iset.mm).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/b3dc988e-b782-a00e-971f-096aad384985%40panix.com.
