Re: Quality Assurance Group mini-policy
On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 04:08:13PM -0700, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> > [was it really neccessary to crosspost to three lists?]
>
> I think all three are appropriate but if you have a suggestion I would
> be open to hearing it.
My suggestion was the Reply-To: field... but never mind now, we already
polluted all three lists.
> > Currently, they have no right to do absolutely anything on their own,
> > and we want to change that.
>
> They should not have that right IMO, but that is a discussion for
> another thread.
Quality Assurance members by definition should have the right to fix
bugs in the distribution, don't you agree?
> > The forced orphaning (as you call it) is something we need, since there
> > can be packages that can currently rot for a couple of releases (yes!)
> > in the archive, and nobody has the right to touch them, since nobody
> > knows where is the maintainer and will he mind.
>
> The mechanism for handling AWOL maintainers needs to be well-thought
> if we are going to attempt to codify it. The presented policy which
> puts these decisions into the hands of the QA group, and with a
> definition that does not even reflect their own intent, does not seem
> acceptable to me.
Indeed, I agree the text should be changed.
> > Did I mention that I will accept any patches you (or anyone else) makes
> > against the text? Output of `diff -u` is preffered.
>
> I would just remove the paragraph defining QAs ability to orphan
> packages. I think that something more along the lines of a policy
> that QA will bring to public attention those packages that are not
> being maintained.
That was also one of the ideas, to post to the -qa list when a package
needs to be uploaded with QA as the maintainer...
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
Reply to: