[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: Changing the NM system



On 00-12-17 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Cord Beermann wrote:
> > >No, I don't intend to change this. My point is: Someone who has a Debian
> > >account can do much harm (intentional or accidential). That's a reason why
> > >I think we should have a severe look at the work of an applicant before he
> > >gets an account.
> >
> > I think that it's also important to look that the existing
> > Debian-Maintainers (no matter how they got into the official part of
> > the project) do the work that is now expected from the NMs.
> >
> > When i look into the BTS, i see a lot of bugs, that are somehow fixed,
> > but not closed, or bugs where no one has touched them for years.
> > (not even 'wontfix' or 'moreinfo' -actions.)
> >
> > It's wrong to let NM run through a long procedure, and on the other
> > side old maintainers disappear (or stop working on their Package) and
> > nobody cares.

> That's another point I'm thinking of as a part of QA work: Setting up
> rules how to take packages and/or delete the Debian account of a member of
> Debian. But that's another discussion I (or someone else) will start in
> the future.

Well, what you propose here is an an removal of a debian developer and I
don't think this should be so easy as you describe it. We should be able
to have a checklist and if some checks fail delete his debian account.
If someone is really MIA and won't come back, we should only disable
first his account, so that he needs to contact us again, to show that he
has again enough time for debian, but an exclusion should only happen
after a vote, so that either the majority of developers agreed or not.

About the take-over of a package, have you read the nice document on
qa.debian.org, that Raphael Hertzog and I wrote some time ago, to take
care of this situation? We already have some guidelines, but they are
just not used. :( So there's no real need to invent the wheel again, but
to take the  current situation and documents and apply them to debian.

Ciao
     Christian

-- 
          Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member
    1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16  63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853

Attachment: pgpWTGT1fsLKk.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: