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

Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:32:54AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 02:19:38AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 23/07/09 at 01:10 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57:07AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >>> Inactive maintainers do not make harm by definition.
> >> The two are completely orthogonal. Also, I disagree that inactive
> >> maintainer do no harm; they do harm if you think they are still
> >> feeling responsible for a package while they are not.
> > Sure, I meant that they do not harm the archive since they do not
> > upload packages.
> Large numbers of them *do* harm the project since they raise the
> constitution's Q/K, but don't vote / second proposals / ... I don't
> think we are at the level where this is an actual problem, but it is
> theoretically possible.

While this is true for Q, it is not true for K. K cannot raise beyond 5;
and Q has not been a problem, ever.

The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.

Reply to: