❦ 1 décembre 2016 15:46 GMT, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> : > There is a recent case where: > * The maintainer has done nothing to the package for many years, > other than infrequent (and usually short) emails to NAK > contributions from others; > * The package is years out of date compared to upstream, afflicted by > bitrot, and many users are asking for the new version; > * Several times, proposed updates have been prepared by contributors > but blocked by the maintainer; > * There are new maintainers ready and waiting, with a new package > ready for upload to sid for stretch; > * Now that the TC is involved the maintainer has written many emails > explaining their decisions to NAK uploads, but TC members are > clearly unconvinced on a technical level that those decisions were > right. > Even in this extreme situation the TC has not seen fit to wrest the > package away from the mainainer's deathgrip. The process is still ongoing, slow, but still. I would have waited a bit more to see where it is going before complaining of inaction. > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely. IMO, this would be a great option. We could keep an official maintainer or a team to keep someone responsible (but we have many examples where this is not sufficient). But otherwise, anyone should be able to upload any package. Maybe the use of a delayed queue (15 days?) could be mandated for those cases. We could also make the low threshold NMU opt-out instead of opt-in. Any step towards less maintainership would be great. -- The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. -- Mark Twain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature