[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 12-06-01 at 06:06pm, George Danchev wrote:
> 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.

Sorry if I am dense, but those pedals and knobs look like maintenance 
ones to me: Simply relabel the sponsor as maintainer as Scott 
(non-)proposes and it _is_ black and white to me.

I am genuinely interested in understanding the reasons for labeling 
sponsoree rather than sponsor as maintainer.  Could you (or anyone) 
elaborate on that?

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: