On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 12:32, Kevin Rosenberg wrote: > Andres Salomon wrote: > > While I appreciate the sentiment, I've already decided to orphan my > > packages. I haven't heard a word from the DAM, and have no idea when/if > > he'll be processing applicants in the near future. I've run out of > > patience; there's other things in Debian that I can work on that don't > > require being in the keyring, I'd rather work on those until the DAM > > processes my app. > > Perhaps opinions vary, but orphaning packages seems to me to be > potentially quite disruptive to users of your packages. Since the DAM > looks at applicant's dedication to the project and its goals, I think > there's a good chance that orphaning your packages until the DAM > approves your application will be counterproductive. I highly disagree. In some cases, the packages I'm orphaning are going to other upstream people (lvm2, devmapper). In other cases, they're going to people who use the packages far more than I (keepalived; I'm still using 0.6.1 on production machines, while unstable has 1.1.7. messagewall; Amaya actually uses it, while I have been unable to while waiting for messagewall2). If the DAM needs proof of my dedication, he merely needs to look at my past 2 years of maintainership, and the things that I'm still actively helping debian with. Also, let's keep in mind that I'm a Debian user first, and a Developer second. Except, I'm not a Developer yet, because of an arbitrary waiting period imposed by the schedule of the DAM. While I'm more than happy to help Debian out (which directly improves my experience as a Debian user), the frustration of essentially being told I can only do so to a certain point greatly diminishes my desire to help. This adversely affects other users, who use both the packages I maintain, as well as the packages I submit patches and bugfixes for. I feel sorry for those users, but that's the way things are. If I could change it, I would.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part