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

[George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>]

On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:54:13 Scott Kitterman wrote:

Hi,

> > ...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>