Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team
On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > responsible for the package.
> What does "Maintainer:" mean if not the entity being responsible for,
> well, maintaining?!?
Who is responsible for the package maintenance in the case where a non-DD is
listed in "Maintainer:", and the package is obviosuly signed and uploaded
(effectively sponsored) by a DD? I guess it is perfectly reasonable to expect
that DD, being in the role of sponsor, is responsible for the package quality
and further maintenance. Sponsors are full-fledged DDs, and trying to claim
that they are not responsible, or are somehow less responsible than any other
non-sponsoring DDs, for the uploads they have done, is obviously plain wrong.
> > If the maintainer fails to keep the package in a useful shape it is
> > the sponsor's responsibility to do so. And last but not least it
> > should be the sponsor's decision to orphan a package if the maintainer
> > is MIA or not doing his job properly. It is also the sponsors
> > responsibility to try to figure out if a maintainer is willing to do
> > his job longer than one upload before sponsoring a package at all.
> I have heard before the argument of the sponsor having responsibility,
> but in reality I have *never* heard of sponsors actually being held
> responsible for anything but the concrete upload of a specific packaging
> ...which leads to my concern for high risk of drive-by contributions!
...hence the Sponsors (who are also a full-fledged DDs) are responsible. It is
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>