* Roberto Lumbreras (rover@debian.org) wrote: > Speaking about your mail, I think it's your opinion, mine is different. Sure, but you're looking through some very rosy glasses. > Jose Luis doesn't want just his name in some place, he has worked a lot > in bacula in the past, and I don't know why he can't remain as > maintainer or co-maitainer if he is going to work on it again. You don't get to rest on your laurels in Debian. Especially when it's been over a year. > Obviuosly if he is unable to maitain it or work on it, it should orphan > the package, but it seems that things are different. That would be exactly the problem- he wants to remain as maintainer or co-maintainer yet has shown nothing to indicate that he's going to work on it again. Not only that but he's trying to refuse work done by others (John) which is clearly in the best interest of Debian and its users (like, I dunno, getting bacula into a state where it can get back into testing...). Besides, Jose Luis will still be able to help with bacula, if he really wants to, by doing bug triage, submitting patches, etc. I fully agree with John's statement though- based on the state which bacula was in and the things which were done in it that were *clearly* policy violations, Jose Luis' contributions need to be checked before being committed. This is something that anyone sponsoring anyone's packages *should* have been doing already. Unfortunately, that part seems to have been forgotten by some. Enjoy, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature