On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 08:17:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I'm willing to support being more aggressive than we currently are about > changing maintainers when someone else steps up and is willing to do the > work, but I'm not willing to support any proposal that automatically > orphans packages where there's no one waiting to work on it who is being > blocked by the current maintainer. I don't think that actually > accomplishes anything useful. We don't have to orphan the package to know > that it's in trouble -- there are many other metrics that can be used for > that. This proposal strikes me as being similar to some of the push for team maintained packages - we need to be careful to avoid focusing so much on the metrics we're using to measure quality of maintenance that we end up optimising them without getting any improvement in quality. I would be surprised if there are any simple metrics for this which are sufficiently reliable to be applied indiscriminately. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature