[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 03:16:06 PM George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi,
> > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > > responsible for the package.
> > 
> > Huh?!?
> > 
> > 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
> > release.
> > 
> > ...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 that simple.

If it's really that simple, one should never sponsor a package one doesn't 
care to maintain.  If this is the case, we should just do away with 
sponsorship and require the uploader to be either Maintainer or in Uploaders 
unless it's an NMU (note: I don't think this is what we want).

Scott K

Reply to: