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

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

Steve Langasek wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 01:31:12PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>> So, it's fairly accurrate to say that if DAM were looked at as a
>> maintainer his actions and documented reasoning so far would be 
>> recalcitrant.  That is if any DD treated their package maintainence 
>> way DAM treats NM queue processing, maintainence of the package could 
>> removed from them.
>>Perhaps; but if a package maintainer is not maintaining his package, 
>>and no one else is willing to take over maintenance of it either, the 
>>usual outcome is a request to remove the package from the archive...

The facetious response to this is: Then, remove the DAM approval stage,
and let in anyone whose AM approved them.

The less facetious response is: Do we *know* that nobody would 
volunteer?  No, we don't.  I'm sure no DDs want to volunteer *while* 
there's someone officially in the job and the DPL is "satisfied" with 
them, as it might be perceived as an attack, and wouldn't have any 
effect anyway!  If the DPL *asked* for volunteers, that might be 

Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>

Reply to: