Re: `Every package must have exactly one maintainer'
Manoj:
> I have only passing interest in this topic, but I wanted to
> point out that on *can* hold people resposible for things even i a
> volunteer project (I most definitely am responsible for my packages),
> we merely can not discipline them for failing to meet their
> responsibilities, apart from the prospect of negative public
> opinion. I think this is a distinction which is not unimportant.
I think we do not want to foster a `negative public opinion' of any
maintainer that we still want to be part of the Project.
What do you mean be `hold responsible for' ? As I said in my article:
] I can think of only two possible reason for saying that a package
] might be required to have only one maintainer:
]
] 1. Decisionmaking in case of disagreement. This is a red herring; ...
] 2. Blame. ...
What other reason are you suggesting, or do you think that blame is a
useful way for us to interact ?
> One only needs look at the bug list for one of the peioneering
> multi-maintainer packages (namely; dpkg) to think that possibly when
> a goup is responsible for a package, in reality no one is responsible
> for it.
What about owner@bugs.debian.org ? The bug system has been maintained
and run by Guy and me jointly for the past goodness knows how long,
and hardly anyone has even noticed.
Ian.
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: