Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
* Thomas Hood <email@example.com> [2005:12:21 17:32 +0100]:
> Erinn Clark wrote:
> > There are plenty of people who are maintaining packages alone
> > that are doing an excellent job
> True. However, the issue in question is whether or not it would be
> better if they maintained in teams.
> > Forcing team maintenance on people would result in very few
> > technical enhancements for such maintainers
> How do you know? I would expect most packages to benefit. Every
> person brings different expertise to the table.
For maintainers who are doing a lot of good work, there's simply not
enough to justify more people. Once there's already a certain level of
efficiency, adding another person is not going to increase it, and will
likely decrease it. I can't see the point of enforcing this as a rule,
which, luckily, was not proposed by Lars.
> > It just seems to me like telling responsible DDs who've done a
> > stellar job that they need a babysitter is a bit... insulting.
> This is not a fair characterization of what the introduction of
> a two-maintainer rule would be doing. No one should be insulted
> by general rule changes designed to make Debian work better.
Bureaucracy is often designed to do lots of things "better" and it often
doesn't achieve them. It creates needless hassle, more 'paperwork', and
has very few benefits besides making people feel like they've done
something useful when they haven't.
Of course, we're both starting from entirely different premises (yours
that all packages are better maintained by more than one person, mine
that this is not universally true and can be worse in some cases) so
there's probably not a lot of wiggle room for agreement here.
off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide