On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:04:11 -0400
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > I'm open to all input, but here's some initial questions I'd like to
> > hear your answers to:
> > - How should developers, herds & teams communicate how welcome they
> > are to NMU changes on their packages?
> 
> The way I've been doing this is:
> - packages I maintain through herd -> go ahead and be responsible.

sys-kernel/gentoo-sources only lists the kernel herd; while I don't
think anyone else is unwelcome, I don't see NMU changes as something
that would happen to it. Since the ebuild could be called optimal,
changes to it would likely make it perform in an unexpected way.

More general, I think there are some packages here that have this kind
of nature; for another instance, the java packages require some
additional knowledge for which Gentoo Developers have to go go through
a quiz. I believe users and proxy maintainers not to be aware of this,
therefore again the changes might sometimes be problematic. 

> - if I add myself explicitly in metadata.xml this means I prefer at
>   least reviewing every change that gets in (with some exceptions for
>   trivial changes, like e.g. qt moving category)

I think this should apply to a herd as well, unless otherwise noted.

> [...]
> > - How do we encourage responsible ownership of changes that cause
> >   breakage? [1]

Since it is listed in the ChangeLog, I think it implies the ownership.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D