> I don't feel my concerns are addressed. When Maintainer: is a list and > Uploaders a list of people, who will take responsibility for those things > that nobody feels responsible for? As I said (the discussion was on > d-release IIRC, vorlon was one of the parties there) the problem has > happened in the past where a package needed some NMU and was blocking some > transitions. The Maintainer field was a list, but nobody on that list felt > inclined to react. If the Maintainer field is a single person, this is > much less likely to happen. Well, that was my point with "Uploaders". It is of course obvious that anyone in the Uploaders list will be subscribed to the mailing list. Let's take an example with Paul Wise ttf-khmeros. Currently, Paul is listed as Maintainer and that's all. My proposal is, *assuming Paul is OK*, put the list as "Maintainer" and Paul as Uploader. This way, and assuming of course that Paul is subscribed to the list, I see no reason for any concern about ttf-khmeros remaining unaddressed. It is obvious for everyone that Paul is then the first one who needs to react...and the list is here just to give more chances that someone else can help. My point in setting the list as Maintainer is exposing the team maintenance more obviously. After all, the D-I team works this way since about 4 years..:-) > So again: when you/we set Maintainer: of packages to this list, who will > feel responsible to react in such cases? My suggestion is to put this > person as Maintainer, and use the pts to get all the bug reports etc. on > the list. That is of course an alternative possibility. My only small concern here is that it does not make very public that some team maintenance happens for this package but, well, the solution is "valid". That would just mean subscribing the list to the PTS. Other advices than Adrian's and mine?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature