Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team
On 05/31/2012 04:57 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> 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
>>> fix
>> 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.
Part of the common and established procedure is to mail d-devel if you
intend to hijack a package. Please have a look into the archives of this
mailinglist, searching for
intend to hijack debian-devel@lists.debian.org site:lists.debian.org
gives a lot of results, including some dating back to 2006. If I
remember right this includes at least one or two messages from me, which
did not receive negative replies at all.
So I completely fail why the original submitter's mail is *that* bad
(your $foo in this case being the maintainer MIA for 3 years), and I
also fail to understand why it needs a major flamewar. It is common
practise for years to discuss hijacks in such cases (original maintainer
MIA for years, or even worse, maintainer lacking the necessarz skill to
maintain important packages) on this list and hijack them if there is
consensus about doing so. Especially do I fail to understand why a
member of the TC, who took part in such discussions before
(https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg00457.html to name an
example), and encouraged people to do so (that is how I understand the
mentioned mail), is now on a killing spree. All he is doing is to
encourage people to give up their idea to improve Debian.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Reply to: