Re: egcc maintainer

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

Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>   >Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
>   >...
>   >> <debate>
>   >> However, one of the group should be nominated to have the prime
>   >> responsibility for the package. This maintainer's address should be
>   >> listed in the Group-leader control field.  The group leader has the
>   >> particular responsibility of ensuring that Debian policy is followed
>   >> and is the person who will be contacted if messages to the group
>   >> alias get no response.
>   >> </debate>
>   >
>   >What is the purpose of this ?  I disagree with it.
>  
> The purpose is to see to it that there is an individual who is deemed
> ultimately responsible.

So that you can blame them ?  How is that helpful ?  Or for some other
reason ?

>   If there is a group with no leader, there is
> no-one to chase when things go wrong.  Any co-operative effort needs
> co-ordination or it will fall apart.  [When things are working well, the
> co-ordinator may not need to do anything, of course, but things do not
> always work well.]

If the `leader' isn't interested, why do you think that having their
email address in a package field will help ?

I think we should leave the decision about how each package is managed
up to the people who do it.

Ian.