Library proposals

[Ross Paterson]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:27:45PM +0000, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> Perhaps a good compromise would be for each package to have a
> maintainer, but for API changes to continue to use the current library
> process?
> 
> That way there is a greater chance that someone will be doing the
> gardening, and they will be more motivated to ensure that proposals
> reach a conclusion, but for API changes the community will not be
> surprised by functions disappearing, appearing or changing.

That would be fine, though I think Johan was arguing that a maintainer
would be more motivated if they had a free hand with the interface.

I still think the primary responsibility for pushing proposals towards
a conclusion should be the proposer's, though.