I don't see that giving a name and conferring status actually helps the underlying issue.
The real problems as I see it are the quagga codebase is complicated and undercommented there are proposed changes, but relatively few instances of deep, thoughtful review and testing. I see far more proposed patches than (other) people who have said that they've tested the patches in some particular environment and found them to work. Or reviewed them to the point that they are willing to be jointly responsible for introduced bugs. There's certainly some, but I think we need about 4x of that per propsed patch. So I'd like to see proposeed changes have initial patches to add remedial comments so that the patch is reasoably reviewable, with the new comments explaining why the code is how it is, and the commit messages explaining why it's changing more people really reviewing (well enough to spot bugs) and testing And I don't think any special status is necessary or helpful to this. So I think technical responsibility is already entirely open to the wider community, and therefore I'm not in favor of your proposal.
pgpnKQsKr7NwS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
