Re: sponsor rules
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:46:23AM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
> > > Speaking of rules: where does it say what happens to a regular
> > > maintainer when he/she(;-) uploads "such buggy packages"?
> >
> > If the damage is bad enough, a lot of his Debian maintainer peers will start
> > to look down at him/her as a moron. That's bad enough for most people.
>
> When a rgistered developer sanctions a package upload, then that implies
> taking responsibility for the package uploaded, I agree. But I wish you
> good luck in reminding the cats about their responsibilities. Do mind
> that most cats do not like to sit on your lap if you stare at them.
> Please don't propose more formalisms that only cloud the view of things.
Ahem, I don't see that formalism you are talking about. Getting sponsors
to pay attention in order not to get ridiculed later is a Good Thing (TM).
Most people will pay attention if we make it clear in the documentation.
Those who don't follow the documentation are hopeless anyway.
> It is also neither reasonable nor fair to offload the security problems
> onto the sponsoring practice wholesale.
I don't see anyone doing that. The point is that latent dangers in our
packages are bad enough, no need to make it worse with badly sponsored
packages.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: