Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

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

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
> If anyone can unilaterally add themselves as maintainer (to pick one
> proposal as an example) and make intrusive package changes (since
> they are a maintainer), there's really no maintainer at all.

I was suggesting this only for the situtation where there is only one
maintainer.

> I do sense a general trend of the conversation towards the idea of
> undermining package maintainership.  Push to hard in that direction
> and you get revert wars and even larger chunks of the archive left
> to rot.

I think we have a problem that a few maintainers are unresponsive to
external corrective input, or uncommunicative (except to block).  I
don't think our systems for dealing with such situations are any good.
It mostly seems to involve having a conversation (necessarily) full of
personal attacks, on the TC list.

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.