[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: have NM and DM sign a package maintainer pledge


On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > I would add to the pledge a statement that, once your packages are in
> > > good condition, you should look forward to fix RC bugs in other
> > > packages. If we agree that this should be part of the pledge text, I can
> > > draft a corresponding sentence.
> > I don't think it's a good idea. And it would only be acceptable for DD,
> > and not all DD agree with this.
> > I want this pledge to be uncontroversial so that its message remains clear
> > and effective.
> I believe the first part of my answer here address the DD vs DM
> problem. Can you then please expand on why you don't think it is a good
> idea to widen the attention to RC bugs on packages other than ours?

How would you word it given it's an optional duty?

If you include the "I will do my best to fix other packages to get out a
stable release", the principle of the pledge might not be as widely
endorsed because some people believe that it's really not their duty 
but the one of those who decided to be maintainers of those packages.

I really want only non-controversial stuff with a relatively sharp
message rather than covering more with a toned down wording because the
rest is optional/nice to have/not required.

> Additionally, I don't see how such extension would make the pledge more
> controversial: the fact that we need people to do RC-countering-NMUs to
> make releases possible is clear evidence for everyone. "Hiding" that
> fact when you ask people to declare their good wills towards the project
> looks rather pointless to me.

If you think in terms of "duty" instead of "good will", it gets more
controversial. I worded this text so that the person signing it has a
clear understanding of his duties with respect to the project.

Raphaël Hertzog

Reply to: