Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
On 21 Apr 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
>
> > Every package in the distribution must have one or more maintainers
> > at a time (see below).
>
> That's not currently true. Orphaned packages are not typically
> removed from the unstable distribution. Instead their maintainer is
> set to (orphaned) or debian-qa@lists.debian.org. I prefer the current
> practice.
I don't think we disagree here. As stated below, orphaned packages will be
maintained by the QA group or will be removed, so all packages will always
have at least one maintainer (either a `real' one, or the QA group).
However, I can try to improve the formulation if this didn't came out
clearly.
> > Duties of a maintainer
> > Privileges of a maintainer
>
> The proposed constitution already provides outlines these in a better
> fashion.
Which constitution have you read? The version I have here, v0.6.1, does
not specify details about maintainership, and according to the foreward of
the constitution, this wouldn't belong into the text anyways.
Is it that you wanted to say that we don't need a formal declaration of
duties and privleges of a package maintainer, since the constitution
already says `Any developer may make any technical or nontechnical
decision with regard to their own work' ?
Then, I'd disagree with you. We definitely need a formal description of
maintainership.
> > Orphaned packages [first paragraph based on s2.3.2, policy manual]
>
> It seems you agree with what I wrote above. So you should strike the
> "Every package..." sentence I quoted.
>
> And now to the crux of your post. This is a much more reasonable
> suggestion. My only criticism is of the requirement of a head
> maintainer. The proposed constitution already has a method for
> settling technical disagreements between developers. Choosing a head
> maintainer purely so that we can point the finger is disingenuous.
I'm very disappointed that noone here (at least, the people that took part
in the discussion until now) sees the needs for having the
responsibilities of package maintenance sorted out and being well defined.
The part you call `crux' is the essential part of my proposal. If you drop
it, the whole proposal is obsolete.
If I'd follow the suggestions that the majority of maintainer has
presented me in the last days, we'd end up with a meta-policy like this:
(note, that I *never* would ratify such a policy)
``We are a bunch of 300 developers who maintain 2000 packages. Since
everyone knows best how to solve upcoming problems and since everyone
always agrees with others--or in case of disagreement we have a
constitution--there is no need to specify who is working on what part.
Everyone can modify any package at any time.
Though, we do have some `policy' manuals, these are just for fun. It's
up to the individual maintainer to either follow policy or not.''
So, is this what people wanted to hear?? If so, please tell me soon about
it, so that I don't waste any additional second on this project.
Chris
(very disappointed)
-- _,, Christian Schwarz
/ o \__ schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
! ___; schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
\ /
\\\______/ ! PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
\ / http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
-.-.,---,-,-..---,-,-.,----.-.-
"DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN!"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: