> you should look at > the archives to see what people decided. from reading the archives and the response so far as well as the current documentation on the subject i conclude that the issue is still not clear and people make up their own stuff as they go along. the following may be a formalisation of current (best) practices: - maintainers fall into three categories. herds, gentoo developers and non-gentoo proxy maintainers. - a herd is defined in herds.xml. exception: no-herd. no-herd is limited to the situation where no suitable herd can be found. - a gentoo developer is defined in dev-rel/roll-call/userinfo.xml. - every ebuild has a herd. - a package can belong to more than one herd. - a package can be maintened by no or more parties. - a package with herd different from 'no-herd' is said to be maintained by the members of that herd. - all maintainers different from herds state their maintainership using the tag. the tag requires the tag. - a package with herd 'no-herd' and no additional maintainers is said to be unmaintained. - a of maintainer-needed@g.o indicates no maintainership and is only allowed as the sole maintainer. meaning a single tag and a single no-herd tag. infact it is semantically equivalent to a single no-herd tag and no additional maintainers. - a package that is proxy maintained needs an additional gentoo association in form of a maintaining herd or gentoo developer. maintainer-needed@g.o may be such an association, but only if the original one disappeared. optionally one may want to include, although personally i prefer to state it explicitly: - a missing or empty tag is equivalent to no-herd open questions: - what does it mean when the package is maintained by a herd and an additional maintainer? how does one determine the order in which to contact multiple maintainers? - are there situations in which we specify a other than no-herd but don't want its members to act as maintainers? ... what are your current best practices regarding metadata? regards Thilo