On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:24:40PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes: > > So you want to be *declared* a co-maintainer in order to convince people > > they should sponsor you? You're only a co-maintainer if your name shows > > up in the Uploaders: field of the package; how are you going to persuade > > someone to make /that/ change in a sponsored NMU? > > If you don't have the cooperation of the original maintainer, it's not > > co-maintainership. If you /do/ have the cooperation of the original > > maintainer, he should in all likelihood be your first choice for a > > sponsor, and I wouldn't sponsor a co-maintainer upload either without > > understanding why the primary maintainer isn't uploading it. > You would point at policy or at a co-maintainer-hijacking-practice.txt > and say it due to unresponsiveness of the maintainer. So your intention is to hijack the package. Then cut the crap about being a "co-maintainer" if you have no intention of working together with the existing maintainer. If the package needs to be hijacked due to maintainer inactivity, you should honestly present this as your reason for requesting sponsorship instead of trying to be named a co-maintainer of a package whose maintainer is MIA. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpc6PkCOAKMQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature