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

Re: bastardizing packages or stepping down


Bah, so much for a quick response that I thought was simple and uncontroversial. :-)

On 2015-03-05 12:08, Sam Hartman wrote:
Adam, let's assume for the moment I've got that right.  I'm trying to
connect with the frustration I'd feel if I were told that I didn't even
have the power to distance myself from something I couldn't in good
conscious claim to support.
I hope that there's some way that michael can approach stepping away
from the package in jessie if he wants to.
If what you're saying is that his proposed mechanism for doing that is
the wrong one, would you be willing to help him out and suggest a
mechanism you believe to be more appropriate?

Yes, I'm specifically saying that I don't believe the Release Team has the authority to do what Michael is asking of us, nor do I believe we should do so. (Individual DDs who are part of the team can of course do so. Apologies if this seems like splitting hairs, but I think the distinction is important.)

The way I'd expect a voluntary change of maintainership to be made would be via an upload either by the existing maintainer, another member of the maintainer team (where appropriate) or the new maintainer (or I guess $RANDOMDD as a "QA upload with maintainer's consent" or similar).

I'm certainly not saying that Michael shouldn't be able to remove himself, simply that I'd feel uncomfortable with the Release Team as an entity doing so.

(Perhaps you'd approve an
ublock for an upload that simply changed maintainer to debian-qa?)

For the record, the Maintainer: listed in the package is debian-boot; Michael's in Uploaders. If it's really that much of an issue then I imagine they could be persuaded to remove his name from the package and in that case I can't see that getting it migrated under those circumstances would be a huge problem.

If what you're saying is that you see no mechanism for him to step away
from a package he no longer feels he can maintain because he and the
release team disagree with the desired contents of that package in

I'm not sure the Release Team has expressed any particular opinion on the desired contents of the package beyond deferring to the d-i RM. I admit that I haven't gone back and checked through the full history of the unblock requests though, so I may have missed something.



Reply to: