[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 31/05/12 15:11, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 05/31/2012 03:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:

A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that
they believe they are not answerable to the project's processes for
how package maintenance is decided.  It is antisocial vigilanteism
and it is not acceptable.

So asking people who want to work actively on a package to wait for
months or years because it is not compltely clear if the original
maintainer is MIA or not, or just nobody had the time to look at the
MIA status, is social? It does not help Debian at all.

As a sitting member of the Technical Committee, I encourage anyone
who sees a package being hijacked to immediately bring it to the
attention of the TC. I will without hesitation vote to have the
hijacker barred from being made the maintainer of the package.

From a member of the TC I would expect some useful input on how to
an obviously broken (since years!) process instead of trying to
forcibly trying to choke down people who actively want to improve
Debian. Welcome to the dictatorship of the TC.

I think what Steve wanted to say is that we have procedures for theses
situations and we should follow those procedures because they exist and
we have concensus. The procedures in question might not be perfect or
completely disfunctional but that is another topic.

You may very well try to change these procedures and discuss new rules
or the needed changes to apply on -devel, but you should not ignore them
and force your own (which was, aiui, what the original submitter of this
thread wanted to do) just because $foo.


Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي

Reply to: