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

Re: Bug#573745: python maintainance: next steps

On 05/13/2010 03:21 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
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.

Very true.

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

The question is indeed if the maintainer failed to properly maintain the package in the given circumstances. Note that the circumstances are by far trivial and that the maintainer showed only good intentions AFAICS. Note also that the maintainer already welcomed some people to co-maintain, but hold strongly to some pre-conditions as he wants to avoid the real mess that resulted from the python 2.6 transition in Ubuntu.

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

That's true for the package maintenance, that is very well untrue for the circumstances and the policy changes he wants to have implemented to avoid similar trouble with the link farm as the ones that happened in Ubuntu.

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.

That would rule out any of the vocal opposants as the new (co-)maintainers IMHO as they are as much part of shapening a blocker as the current maintainer AFAICS.



Reply to: