Re: Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> This suggests a form of default judgement, penalizing one party for
> "failing to appear" before the TC. However, the stated duties of a
> maintainer don't include defending one's maintenance practices before
> the TC; while it makes our work harder to adjudicate without the
> maintainer's input, I'm not willing to make a political statement like
> this with my TC vote.
Amen.
I'm disturbed by the tone of some of the recent traffic which seems to
imply that Matthias must either personally respond to people's e-mail or
be completely removed from any role with the Python packages in order
for this complaint to be satisfied.
What matters in a resolution here is that the package be of good technical
quality and that the previous problems with movement on Python policy and
new versions of Python be resolved and there be some mechanism in place to
address them in the future. This does not require that Matthias
personally do anything in specific, and indeed under 2.1.1 of the Debian
Constitution I don't believe that *can* be a remedy. It only requires
that he not work against those goals or stand in their way. I'm far from
convinced that this implies that he must stop working on Python.
> The parallel efforts of folks such as Piotr, Scott and Barry to
> understand the technical impasses blocking progress, and to identify
> satisfactory compromises, have done far more to improve the state of
> python in Debian over the past 9 months in real terms than anything I've
> seen from the members of the proposed maintainer team, or anything I
> would expect this committee to be able to accomplish by fiat. If we are
> to change the maintainership of the python packages, these are the
> people we should consider first and foremost for the role; and I doubt
> that a TC resolution will be required to make that happen.
>From what I've seen so far, I concur with this.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: