Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
> > 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.
>
>
> You are saying that requiring people to find co-maintainers is
> "bureaucracy"? Someone I know well recently got co-maintainers for
> three of his packages by posting a single message to debian-devel.
I think that what Erinn wants to say is more that *forcing* (or
putting pressure on) maintainers to find co-maintainers would be
"bureaucracy".
I think that she will however agree that *encouraging* co-maintenance
for "key" or "important" packages (which is a very vague definition)
is one of the ways to go. But she will probably be able to say it by
herself: I'm just interpreting....
The word "bureaucracy" here has of course a negative meaning for
"constraints that are felt unneeded"....which I mostly agree with.
I sometimes defend the idea that bureaucracy may be needed but I'm not
sure it's needed here.
Reply to: