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
>consider
>> recalcitrant. That is if any DD treated their package maintainence
>the
>> way DAM treats NM queue processing, maintainence of the package could
>be
>> 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
different.
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Reply to: