Re: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Christian Schwarz:
> Well, first of all current policy says ``Every package must have
> exactly one maintainer at a time.'' (see section 2.3.2 The maintainer
> of a package). So this is the case. Whether it `should' be the case
> needs to be discussed.

Well, it never used to be the case.  It must have been added without
consultation while noone was looking.

It should be removed forthwith, both because it wasn't properly
discussed and decided upon and because consensus here during the
discussion about it was that this restriction should be removed.

Usually packages should have one maintainer, but it should be the
decision of the people involved what the arrangements actually are.

So, I'm happy with everything you say except:
> 2. In some cases a package will be maintained by a group of
> people. This is an exception to our policy and requires special
> approval. The "Maintainer:" field for such packages will be of the
> form "Description-of-the-Maintainer-Group <email@host>" where the
> "Description" uniquely defines a set of maintainers, and may be
> listed on several packages which are all maintained by the same
> developers.

I'd like the sentence `This is an exception ... approval' deleted.

There is no point then stating:
> The email address has to be some mail alias; all mails sent to that
> address have to be forwarded to all maintainers in the group.

You might as well leave that out.  I'm sure the maintainers of a
package can decide for themselves what they want to do with their
email.

Ian.