Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)
On Monday, December 12, 2016 01:16:49 PM Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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 know, but once it's one, then it will be two, because reasons.
> > 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.
I agree the current system isn't working, but I think if you optimize for
these relatively rare hard cases, you'll do more harm than good.
In line with some other recent comments (I think on this list, I lose track),
I think if the TC were a bit more aggressive about requiring people with
issues they want the TC to address to put them in neutral technical terms
(the U.S. legal parallel would be roughly case dismissed for failure to make a
justiciable claim [1]) before they will consider them, the existing process
could work in a less painful way.
It would also help if third parties kept their rants to a minimum.
Scott K
[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justiciable
Reply to: