Re: maintainer field
On 9/6/07, Ondrej Certik <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > This is certainly my preference. It's much clearer if there is *one*
> > person named as the responsible party for the packages.
> > It's a fact of human psychology that if a collective group is named as
> > the responsible party, then nobody in that group feels particularly
> > responsible. This is one reason why groups nominate a leader: it gives
> > that person a stake in seeing the group's efforts succeed.
> That's right, on the other hand I think philoshophy here at DPMT is
> that if the maintainer is set to DPMT, anyone can make any change and
> upload. If I am set as the maintainer, I should approve all the
> changes - but that can be slow (I can be out of town, I can be busy,
> So I myself chose to be among Uploaders and set Maintainer to DPMT,
> because this more enforces team work and I like team work.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
I had a discussion on #debian-devel about this, and "they" thought it
was pretty stupid to have DPMT as uploader, as it would make every
package NMU. Though also that the fields in control are pretty stupid,
and I had idea to change it, pretty much of them waht's to maintain
the status quo.
/Carl Fürstenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>