In <[🔎] 4D307440.30003@debian.org>, Thomas Goirand wrote: >Exactly since when, a private email is an official document for a change >of maintainership in Debian? What are RFA, O, and ITA for then? I think >you are mistaking Gregor, it's not enough. It should be. The bugs types are for when communication needs to occur on a wider scale, particularly with the wnpp team. We don't *have to* add something a b.d.o for every bug fixed by upstream, or each lintian error / policy violation cleaned; we also don't *require* one for changes in package ownership. >Now, seeing the activity of the >package (and the fact it hasn't been maintained correctly by the past >maintainer which more or less was MIA), I think that writing a new bug >report giving one week for the old maintainer would be enough, but I >don't think that we can avoid an ITA at least, just based on the pure fact >that the old maintainer "agreed privately"! We need to keep things with >a public record, otherwise we are risking take-overs. Well, if the old maintainer agrees, they should do the initial sponsorship. If for some reason they can't; the private email does need to be disclosed to (at least) the DD that does the actual sponsoring. We do need to respect the work of existing maintainers; part of that is not "stealing" a package from them. We do what is necessary to prevent that. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.