Team membership in Red Hat is largely irrelevant for package ownership in Fedora. Leaving a team is certainly not a reason in itself to lose ownership of a package.

Regarding the libsolv bump, there was at thread on fedora-devel [1] and a fesco ticket [2].

To remove somebody from ownership of package, you'd have to show a sustained history of bad maintainership. One time lack of communication (which I'm not even sure can be said to have happened in this case) is certainly not enough.

@ignatenkobrain care to comment?

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/XUAGTPBBO3AVJ7IACON7WETBQ7QYIOMR/#BCFZQ6U2AAXMULVDR7UWFNTCXV62M6T5
[2] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2009

because there was a new upstream version and dnf stack wasn't supposed to be tested against it until we decide to make a rebase in Fedora

This is not true, libsolv was not built in dnf-nightly in COPR for long time, and Marek disabled it for EPEL. Also wasn't supposed to be tested is not what I said, I said that we shouldn't bump soname in nightly until Fedora rebases libsolv to avoid any big breakages.

so I can manage the permissions and have control over the package

You are already and admin so you can manage permissions.

Team membership in Red Hat is largely irrelevant for package ownership in Fedora.

Also given that I'm one of maintainers in upstream of libsolv (not that I do much, but still) -- giving up ownership in Fedora is really bad.

To remove somebody from ownership of package, you'd have to show a sustained history of bad maintainership. One time lack of communication (which I'm not even sure can be said to have happened in this case) is certainly not enough.

Moreover, DNF team is not maintaining libsolv -- there are only a few patches in upstream from them. So claiming that I'm doing bad maintainership role for libsolv is... unpleasant

I think @ignatenkobrain has been doing a great job as libsolv maintainer thus far. As an example: with the most recent soname bump, he proactively reached out to me and we worked together to ensure the Zypp stack and the OBS backend components packaged in Fedora were upgraded together with libsolv to keep things working.

We've worked together on this stuff for a few years now, even back when he was the steward of the hawkey library, and I don't think it's necessary for Igor's maintainership of libsolv to be revoked.

I see no issues with the way @ignatenkobrain has been maintaining this package, save that there was a miscommunication in this instance as to the timing of this soname bump. That was partially on FESCo, as we did not check in the FESCo Request that the DNF team was in the loop for the change. We'll be better about that from now on.

I vote "-1" on removing @ignatenkobrain from the libsolv package.

I also vote -1 to removing Igor from the package.

-1 obviously too

@dmach,

Given the fact that you already have admin permissions on the package, I'm going to vote -1 at this time.

Please work together with @ignatenkobrain (and any other co-maintainers) to maintain the package in Fedora. If for some reason that doesn't work as a viable solution, please come back and I'd be happy to re-evaluate my vote.

Also -1, I see no reason for this.

It's been a week. Package ownership change is rejected (0, 0, -5).