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