| Here's a proposal: don't have mailing lists maintain libraries. | Calling libraries@ a maintainer is a bit of a misnomer: | | * libraries@ doesn't clean up the code. | * libraries@ doesn't write tests. | * libraries@ doesn't consider APIs for completeness. | * libraries@ doesn't polish documentation. | | Libraries maintained by the mailing list are only maintained thanks to | individuals (the Simons, Ian, other people with commit access) do some | spring cleaning outside the libraries process. | | My suggestion is that every library has a dedicated maintainer (or | two), empowered to make changes to the library. That means that | everyone want like every change they make, but it's much better than | the alternative. I agree with this. There could be more than two maintainers, but they should be named individuals. If a library has no individuals willing to take it on, maybe we don't need it! Simon