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

Re: soundtracker not updated ?


Quoting Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp):
> I have an impression that there is no way to track sponsored people
> becoming unavailable, and packages are not "O:" even when they have lost 
> interest.
The sponsor has responsability over the package. If the sponsoree
disappears, or loses interest, the sponsor should find a solution.

> There seems to be a problem. Is this a responsibility of the 
> sponsor to set the packages to orphaned when the sponsored package
> maintainer is unavailable?
Hm, the above text could be repeated here :)

When a maintainer sponsors a package this is (in my opinion) exactly the
same as the maintainer _maintaining_ the package, except from some
infrastructural differences, allowing bugreports etc. to arrive at the
sponsoree's address, and the sponsor doesn't do the packaging work; the
sponsoree takes care of this.
If the sponsoree dies, dissolves into thin air, or decides he doesn't like
the task, this is the sponsor's problem. The sponsor makes sure the
sponsoree is a responsible, active person; if he makes a judgement mistake
he should take care of those consequences as well.
(and yet another reason why i think the whole sponsoring thing sucks, and
should be removed from the maintainership process)


			      Linux Generation
   encrypted mail preferred. finger rvdm@debian.org for my GnuPG/PGP key.
		      <Arnd> Ik _heb_ ook wel gaatjes!

Reply to: