Re: Orphaning my packages
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:28:59PM +0200, Goulais, Raphael wrote:
> On Friday 23 May 2003 03:52, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> > Morgon Kanter <morgon@surgo.net> writes:
> > > None taken. And no, I am not.
> > [a DD]
> >
> > OK, then, I'm going ahead and taking fltk1.1.
>
> Does this mean that debian policy is that DD have priority over a non-DD ?
> Perhaps Morgon wants to become a DD ... and packaging fltk1.1 could be an
> interesting work for him, and could give him some help in the process of
> displaying interest to the debian community. Who are you to take over this
> package, just because you made it through the processs before him ?
MHO: yes, I think a developer should have priority over a non-DD.
This isn't about elitism, simply about the best interests of the users
and the distribution.
An existing developer can take over a package, make a new upload
immediately, and generally knows what he is doing. Of course a DD can
make mistakes too, but is known to have passed a skills check as part
of the NM process. A non-DD needs to find a sponsor, may not have the
skills to take on the package, etc. I am doubtful that this process can
lead to a regularly maintained package.
Further I think the developer has more committment and accountability
to the project and their packages than a non-DD. This is not necessarily true
but I think it will be in general. Some non-DDs may never make it to be
developers at all - either because they are rejected, or lose interest
along the way.
The same arguments apply to ITPs. If I'm working on new package X, I
don't want to wait until a sponsored upload of package Y that X requires
is available. Sorry. I don't mean to be rude or elitist or whatever.
May I ask what benefits you think a registered developer should be
allowed to have over a non-DD? Do you argue for voting rights too?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: