Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

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

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"):
 Lars Wirzenius 
> > I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package
> > ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or
> > something, listing maintainers who are OK if someone hijacks their
> > package if the maintainer isn't taking good care of it. Would anyone
> > else than I put themselves on that new page? (If you would, start the
> > page on the wiki and announce it on this thread, and I'll add myself.)
> 
> A similar proposal: Have a way of declaring the package to be under
> collective maintenance (put it under collab-maint on alioth +
> Maintainer: collective@debian.org or somesuch?)  That'd move closer to a
> model where individuals don't own that particular package.

This is all very well and good, but frankly, Lars (and the others in
this conversation) are not the problem.  The problem maintainers won't
put themselves on a LowThresholdAdoption list either.

We already have ways of dealing with maintainers who are simply
absent or busy, and not actively resisting.  Our processes for that
are rather cumbersome but it is possible to use them effectively.

What we lack is a way of dealing with maintainers who are determined
not to lose control of their packages.  (And I do mean "control".)

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.