Re: Maintenance of python-cryptography
On March 15, 2024 7:19:16 AM UTC, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>On 3/13/24 18:34, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064979
>>
>> Would some of you who are pushing so hard to change the policy for Uploaders/
>> Maintainer in the team please step up and take over this package. It really
>> needs updated to the new upstream release (blocking both aioquic and
>> dnspythong for me, I don't know about others).
>>
>> I haven't done a comprehensive check, but I think morph asked for all the leaf
>> packages he was maintaining in the team to be removed from the archive and is
>> removing himself from uploaders/maintainer on others.
>>
>> You all made this mess. Please clean it up.
>
>Absolutely not. Sandro did. There's btw absolutely no reason to declare a package as "orphan" if it is supposed to be team maintained. It's also a very bad behavior to do this silently, without telling the team about it, or taking part of the thread. I very much regret things are happening this way, but I don't think the rest of the team should be held responsible.
>
>If you have the list of the packages matching what you are saying, please do share.
>
>On 3/14/24 08:52, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> I would have prefered to
>> read constructive arguments instead of silent leaving the team (in the
>> sense of not informing the team mailing list about the leave).
>
>Me too. But I'm not surprised.
I didn't have a list, I'm glad someone went through and made one.
Yes, he might have handled his departure from the team differently, but I found the entire discussion about changing the team policy on setting the maintainer very off putting. I haven't talked to him about it beyond making sure he was aware of the discussion, so I don't know why he handled it the way he did, but I can easily imagine he was quite frustrated.
Frankly, I think statements like the above aren't particularly consistent with the project CoC and have me thinking again about if this is the kind of team I care to be involved with.
While the way he left the team is on him, the fact that it even came up is 100% on the people pushing this change. I don't think there's any evidence that some other reason is the cause.
Also, for packages which are team maintained, but only have one uploader, orphaning is exactly the correct thing to do when that person gives up the package. A human uploader is required. Similarly, it's the maintainer's call if a package should be removed or if it can remain maintained by QA. While I agree more communication would have better, those are entirely appropriate actions for a team maintained package with a single uploader.
Scott K
Reply to: