[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#573745: python maintainance: next steps

Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#573745: python maintainance: next steps"):
> For the initial setup, I would like to have people in the core team
> that are ok by both Matthias and the people who brought this to the
> tech ctte (e.g. you). If that doesn't work out, we'll of course decide
> who is in the core team. I think that's reasonable.

We should not forget the effect our approach here will have on other
maintainers.  If we act now to give the existing maintainer a veto, to
spare their feelings and avoid demotivating them, if perhaps it was
they who were in a large part the reason for the bad situation, then
we are saying to every maintainer that they do not need to worry: if
they are at the centre of a storm of this kind, we will still honour
their ownership of the package.

Perhaps what you are forgetting is that the maintainer has a
responsibility not just for the technical contents of the package, but
also to facilitate other people's work as it relates to their package.
The maintainer has a pretty much unfettered ability to delegate, to
create a team of their choice, and so on; that comes with the
responsibility to do so when appropriate.  So one thing we need to
consider is whether in this case the maintainer has failed in that

Or to put it another way, if the maintainer wanted help from a team
acceptable to them, they could have simply decreed it.

I think we do need to consider whether it would be best if the
maintainer put their evident technical skills to use elsewhere.  Not
just in the context of one package, but also to so that the project
can see that if you really can't manage to work with people, and act
as a blocker, you may be deposed.


Reply to: