Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team
- From: George Danchev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:06:53 +0200
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <1888095.EXhfyjLExP@scott-latitude-e6320>
- References: <4FC51A32.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <1888095.EXhfyjLExP@scott-latitude-e6320>
On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:54:13 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > ...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).
I don't think this is that black and white indeed. In the case of unresponsive
non-DD maintainer, obviously the Sponsors (having more powerful pedals and
knobs than the sponsoree wrt to the archive) have several courses of action
(in no particular order; various combinations are also possible):
* step in and maintain the package themselves
* ask for help, search for co-maintainers, etc
* suggest orphanage
* you name it
and I guess this is a very basic, but fairly sufficient measure to handle the
the case of run-away non-DD maintainers.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>