Re: `Every package must have exactly one maintainer'
Hi,
I have no argument, or viable objections, to having multiple
maintainers for packages. I do think that it _may_ lead to a dilution
of responsibility, but since one of the reasons offered (apart from
the division of labour angle) is sharing of responsibility as it may
be too onerous for one maintainer, even my mild objections are moot.
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> 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.
Ian> I think we do not want to foster a `negative public opinion' of
Ian> any maintainer that we still want to be part of the Project.
Probably. Though I wonder if chronic lack of responsibility
for a task one has signed up for should affect whether the project
still wants them. I understand real world intrusions; but when that
happens (and it has happened to me, about 18 months ago), one merely
finds good homes for ones packages, and returns when the real world
has receded.
Ian> What do you mean be `hold responsible for' ? As I said in my
Ian> article:
Expect people to be responsible for what they signed up to
do. This may no longer be enough as a functional measure.
>> 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. ...
Ian> What other reason are you suggesting, or do you think that blame
Ian> is a useful way for us to interact ?
No. I was hoping that mere expectation of responsibility would
suffice; however, with the growth of Debian and free software as a
whole, this appears to be less likely to be accurate.
My personal experience has been that if one is responsible for
something as a part of a group, as opposed to being personally
responsible as an individual, there is a dilution of the sense of
urgency to care for that entity, as the rationale is one of the other
members of the group shall attend to it.
>> 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.
Ian> What about owner@bugs.debian.org ? The bug system has been
Ian> maintained and run by Guy and me jointly for the past goodness
Ian> knows how long, and hardly anyone has even noticed.
Touchè. That paragraph from me was uncalled for, and I do
apologize for it.
manoj
--
Date: 17 Mar 90 18:30:39 GMT From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal
Schwartz) @ARGV=split(//,'Just another Perl hacker,');push(@x,'')while@x<@ARGV;
for$x($[..$#x){grep(*y=*_,$x[$x]);$y=shift;}print@x;
@ARGV=split(//,'Just another Perl hacker,');push(@x,'')while@x<@ARGV;
for$y(@x){$y=shift;}print@x;
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
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: