Re: Bug#573745: Initial draft of resolution of the Python Maintainer question

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Bug#573745: Initial draft of resolution of the Python Maintainer question"):
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > If that is the case, I suggest to briefly mention that the options
> > have been formed discussing "with all relevant and interested
> > parties, on the -python list" or something similar. A relevant
> > reference would be:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2012/04/threads.html#00008
> 
> I don't have a problem with that, except that I think that shouldn't
> be in the resolution itself. [Though perhaps an additional sentence in
> the opening explanatory paragraph would be enough to document that?]

Is there some reason we can't add a new item

 N. All relevant and interested parties have been canvassed, via the
    -python list, to find what the possible teams of maintainers are 
    for the python interpreter packages.  See
      https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2012/04/threads.html#00008

to the resolution ?

Ian.