Re: Mechanism for removing developers
John Goerzen writes ("Mechanism for removing developers"):
...
> In light if this, I ask if we have some mechanism for either removing a
> developer from Debian if they have serious lack of responsibility issues, or
> at least of declaring their packages orphaned and up for adoption. If not,
> I would like to ask that we consider drafting a policy for such a situation.
I disagree very strongly with the implication that being a Debian
developer obliges you to take on particular tasks.
A Debian developer is (by definition) someone who does work for
Debian. Provided that a developer is still contributing in some way,
there is no call to remove them.
Of course, if there is a package that is not being maintained, I
suggest you offer to take it over. If the maintainer doesn't reply
within a reasonable time you can probably consider that assent.
> I am not proposing throwing people out for having bugs in their packages, or
> even for having lots of them. Rather, what I am proposing is a way to
> prevent people that ignore their responsibility from becoming a hindrance to
> the quality and freshness of Debian.
If you feel that there should be a formal description of when it is
appropriate to take over a package without explicit agreement of the
maintainer, and of when it is appropriate to do an NMU, I wouldn't be
opposed to this. Go ahead and write one, and the policy group can add
it to the relevant manual after it has been discussed and agreed on.
If you feel that there should be a mechanism for detecting absent
developers, I wouldn't oppose you. But, a developer should only be
removed from the rolls if they have not contributed to the project for
some time (perhaps 6 months). Posting to one of the public mailing
lists, uploading a package, submitting a bug report, etc, should all
count as contributions. And, such a person should be mailed to ask
them whether they still want to be part of the project, and they
should stay if they say `yes'. If you want to write the software for
this, go ahead.
Ian.
Reply to: