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

Re-contacting the new-maintainer people is misdocumented (was: Re: developer status again)



Package: developers-reference
Version: 2.4.1.5

On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 11:53:13AM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> Bo Branten <bosse@ing.umu.se> writes:
> > [...] he should be treated with respect and that includes getting an
> > answer on the new-maintainer request within a week.
> 
> Respect... that's an interesting idea.  Does that involve not sending
> repeated copies of large mails to the new maintainer people when you
> don't get a reply in a time frame you like, Bo?  If it does I'd like
> some of that respect...

Perhaps, then, the instructions for us eager not-yet-maintainers
should be updated (again).  From the Developer's Reference, section 2.2:

8<--
Once this information is received and processed, you should be
contacted with information about your new Debian maintainer
account. If you don't hear anything within 7-14 days, please re-send
your original message--the new-maintainer volunteers are typically
overworked, and mistakes do occasionally happen.
8<--

If I am understanding you correctly, James, this should say something
like:

... If you don't hear anything within a reasonable time, please resend
... mistakes do occasionally happen.  However, please check the
archives for debian-mentors and debian-devel first; the new-maintainer
volunteers may already have some backlog of submissions, and in that
case resubmitting your data will just make things worse.

> [For the record; Bo *has* had an answer from the new maintainer people

We all got one, just beore the supposed freeze.

For the record, I just released my Malaga package.  Since I am not yet
a Debian developer, the package is temporarily at
<URL:ftp://ftp.jyu.fi/pub/linux/local-DEBs/>.



        Antti-Juhani
-- 
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho A7 <gaia@iki.fi> ** <URL:http://www.iki.fi/gaia/> **

                       The FAQ is your friend.
                            Trust the FAQ.


Reply to: