Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
[ Not in a huge hurry to get back into this discussion, but there are
a couple of inaccuarcies here ]
Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
> Debian QA group: The QA group is not a replacement for a
> maintainer. (I verified this by asking James Troup, who's, AFAIK, a
> member of the QA group.)
Umm, nope, sorry if I gave that impression, part of my problem with
the QA group is that there is no clearly define QA group, it's just
some nebulous entity, tremulously defined by the subscription list of
the associated mailing list. Personally I think the QA group needs to
be reevaluated and made to work or it should disappear. [Not that I
have the time to get involved myself, which is why it's nothing more
than a thought]
> owner@bugs, new-maintainer: These are not _packages_!
Hmm, well, you can file bugs against bugs.debian.org. So I think even
more than new-maintainer a lot of the same issues apply
(responsibility, communication, software to maintain (debbugs), etc.).
> (There is only the new keyring package waiting in Incoming/.)
Actually, it's not anywhere yet, I haven't finished packaging it,
thanks to YAWN *mutter*.
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: