On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 08:38 +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On the other hand, I think there might be some benefit to requiring > that the Maintainer field must always denote one single Debian > developer, who would be the "buck stops here" guy for that > package. Not an applicant, not a mailing list, and not a group of > people. This "not an applicant" thing is a bad idea. As you might know, the NM-process is designed around the idea that someone has to prove they're up to the task they want to do. That's why for packagers it's required to have packaging activitity. Disallowing them to have the final responsibility over a package disables you to evaluate whether they're actually fit for this responsibility. In the current situation, it's already clear that the person in the Maintainer field has the final responsibility, and the sponsor acts as a fallback only. Thijs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part