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

Re: ITH: gdm -- GNOME Display Manager

>>>>> "NN" == Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:

    MR> In my opinion, "serious objection" to Josselin Mouette
    MR> proposal have no ground if we are talking about procedure.

    Me> Sorry, but I'm unaware of any other discussions joss@ has had
    Me> with Ryan. I don't think a post on d-d really counts as making
    Me> contact with the current maintainer.

    NN> Why precisely do you think *you* would be aware of such
    NN> discussions?

One way would be for joss@ to note that he'd had those discussions in
his original ITH message. If he had, I probably wouldn't have even
noticed the message.

    NN> According to the procedure quoted from the developers'
    NN> reference, they can take place privately.

Absolutely! d-d is too noisy as it is, without getting cc'd on every
inter-developer email.

joss@ asked for objections to his idea. My objection was that he
should probably make sure through private email that rmurray was
really unavailable before adopting the package. From his d-d ITH post,
it didn't sound like he'd done that, but subsequent posts imply that
he has.

I'm not crazy about the idea of hijacking packages -- my reading of
procedure says that debian-qa should take over unmaintained packages
-- but if it happens, the hijacker should at least make sure that the
package isn't going to be 'jacked back.

Anyways, I'm a disinterested third party, and don't really have any
say in the matter except for being a DD and wanting to have our
collaboration go smoothly.


Evan Prodromou

Reply to: