Re: Delegation for the Release Team
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Delegation for the Release Team"):
>> On 06/01/14 at 11:56 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote:
>> > Explicitly again: Please see the last 7 years worth of bits mails, where
>> > the release team have lowered this without advance notice, for BSPs etc.
>> First, I do not think that we have a NMU *policy*. What we have is a set
>> of (non-binding) recommended procedures, including recommended delays,
> I think regarding our NMU policy as non-binding is a very bad idea.
> NMUs are an important area of interaction between maintainers and
> other contributors. Given the social contest, I think it is very
> important that we have a clear understanding of what kind of NMU is
> permissible when. Anything else is a recipe for people with different
> understandings of the rules to end up arguing.
Additional layers of bureaucracy and inflexibility are the opposite
direction that the project should be going in.
> Can you imagine the reaction of a maintainer team if an NMUer
> justified a breach of the policy on the grounds that it's not binding
> but only "guidelines" ? I think the reaction here on -devel would be
> unfavourable too.
That is already effectively "enforced" by public shaming (mostly by
the release team). It would be nice if those engaged in that
enforcement were more kind. A simple tip to devref would be most of
the time effective.