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>]

Philip Hands writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
> Until now I've tended to be irritated by the way courts do that, but
> suddenly I have more of an understanding of why they do ;-)
> 
> Having someone that is familiar with court processes on the TC might
> help. I don't know if any of the current batch have a legal background.

While I'm a successful litigant, but I have no formal training.
But you can see a lot from reading judgements.

> I wonder how long it would be before people start acting as advocates to
> guide others though our increasingly arcane rules -- that might actually
> work quite well though.  Perhaps we'd have a better process if someone
> not involved in the dispute acted as champion for each party, so that
> even timid folk could be confident that the person they were dealing
> with was on their side.

That might well help.

> > It would also help if third parties kept their rants to a minimum.
> 
> I'm not sure what sanction we could enforce for contempt of TC ;-)

The TC ought to be able to block someone from posting to its mailing
list (and to bugs in the TC's purview).

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.