[lots of snippage] I fear I don't see your point - and I feel you don't see mine. Here's why I feel *forced* comaintainership is not a solution: Maintainers divide in (i) those who already work in teams on their packages (ii) those who don't. Ignore (i). (ii) divides in (a) those who do a good job (b) those ho don't. Ignore here what metrics we use to decide that. This division is not useful because (a) maintainers may become (b) maintainers over time. So there's (a) those who know when to ask for help and (b) those who don't. Now, my claim is that only this (b) is what the forced comaintainership will try to solve. And badly, because I assume that those latter maintainers are also those who would, probably, object anyway to forced co-maintainership, and so would either ignore the order, be forced out of Debian in consequence, or pay lipservice by putting Random Joe Developer into Uploaders (I'm not claiming they'd do that without consent of Random Joe, but I claim that he'd never do anything on the package, and consequently would not make a difference even if the package is relatively badly maintained.) The other side, and we've seen some people say this in this thread already, is that even if a maintainer asks for help, he may not get any - IIRC nis was one such package, and I claim that its still used by quite a few, so in theory somebody should be found. Ok, I hope this is stated clearly enough. cheers -- vbi -- Stilblüten aus Schreiben von Versicherungsnehmern: Meine Antwort vom 17.7 hat sich offenbar mit Ihrer Erinnerung gekreuzt.
Attachment:
pgp5y_VevhD13.pgp
Description: PGP signature