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

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 09:58:07AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Martin Loschwitz wrote:

>> In my opinion, with this step, mICQ has proven as dishonorable to
>> be distributed with Debian anymore

> If you don't want to handle it anymore, a request for adoption might
> be more suitable. It sounds as though upstream's problem is with you
> personally, not Debian as a whole, so he might stop putting in
> little easter eggs like this if the package is maintained by someone
> he is happier to work with.

I think Debian should somewhat stick together. We certainly shouldn't
encourage upstream developers to annoy our users because of issues
they have with the maintainer.

On the other hand, forcing a package maintainer upon upstream is
counter-productive. And "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free
Software". It hurts our users to have a sucky Gnomovision because the
upstream Gnomovision developer can't stand the maintainer.

This brings me to a more general issue: We need a procedure to
"disown" maintainers. I mean, if they prove they suck at maintaining
some package, some procedure to assign the package to someone
else. The initial request could come from upstream, pissed off users,
something like that (a "plaintiff"). Some procedure (a "trial") would
then decide whether removing maintainership of that package from the
maintainer would be just, fair and the better thing for Debian, its
users, free software. We need a carefully crafted policy to guide the
trial, to write down how these goals should be balanced.

Lionel Elie Mamane

Attachment: pgph84TBIdbXf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: