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

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

>>>>> In article <[🔎] 20030213215204.GB18373@tofu.home.mamane.lu>, Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu> writes:

 > 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.

	Annoy our users? Cripple programs, and damage the reputration
 of Debian, and use end users (those we strive, in the social
 contract, to keep up in high regard and all) as collateral damage to
 coerce Debian into action? 

	Regardless of what else needs be fixed here, that action is

 > 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.

	Cool. Lets see who pissed me off today ....

And the crowd was stilled.  One elderly man, wondering at the sudden
silence, turned to the Child and asked him to repeat what he had said.
Wide-eyed, the Child raised his voice and said once again, "Why, the
Emperor has no clothes!  He is naked!" "The Emperor's New Clothes"
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: