Re: Dogme05: Team Maintenance
Scripsit "Thaddeus H. Black" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>> It is already the case that "flatly refusing to give away the package
>> or even allow co-maintenance" *should* not happen at all and, if it
>> does happen, *should* not prevent the package from eventually being
>> given to somebody who is willing to keep it properly maintained.
>> I agree that our mechanism for turning those "should"s into "do"s are
>> not, empirically, always working well. But simply adding by fiat
>> another requirement for the maintainer to flatly refuse to follow is
>> not likely to help solving the underlying problem.
> We have such a mechanism? I didn't know this.
I didn't actually look it up, but even if the only mechanism we have
is "work it out on the mailing lists and appeal to the DPL / tech-ctte
/ a GR in case of stuckness", it is still a mechanism, at least for my
rhetorical purposes :-)
> Never having personally encountered a serious problem with an
> intransigent maintainer, I do not know much about it, but now you make
> me curious.
Sorry to have raised your expectations unwarrantedly.
Henning Makholm "Monarki, er ikke noget materielt ... Borger!"