Re: tb's questions for the candidates
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:19:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > > > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > > > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
> > > > packages, inform the keyring maintainer that they are leaving the
> > > > project [1]) should not be treated the same as maintainers who
> > > > leave the project properly.
> > > Then how should they be treated, exactly?
> > They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
> > which is what they did. In practice, this means that someone who left
> > Debian properly by resigning can easily come back by mailing the
> > keyring maintainer. Those who did not retire properly, on the other
> > hand, will have to go through New Maintainer in order to ensure they
> > understand their duties and procedures in Debian.
>
> So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
> haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown? Or if those
> packages haven't had severe enough bugs for you, perhaps Branden or the
> entire Progeny staff should be put through n-m again for abandoning pgi
> which has had an RC bug in unstable for well over a year now?
You are way overreacting, probably because a crucial part of
Thomas' original post got snipped, which makes it clear that the topic
is about closing down accounts, not just about people who don't maintain
their packages well and have them orphaned.
Orphaning packages has nothing to do with closing down accounts because
somebody is MIA, apart from the fact that this is one prerequisite.
The former is taken out by QA, the latter by the DAM. James made it
pretty clear how he handles this, namely, he sends pings to people who
don't have a single package in the archive anymore and are otherwise
considered to be MIA (no records of mailing list activity, e.g.) for a
considerable amount of time. People who respond to the pings don't have
their accounts locked down, AIUI.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200305/msg00006.html
Of course, neither you nor Progeny qualify for this (having your account
removed), so the rest of your post is moot. FWIW, I agree with Martin on
this. If you're *so* MIA that the DAM decides to lock down your account,
it's better to get back in touch with policy and stuff.
Also note that people who *do* apply again for NM after having resigned
sometimes (often?) get their account back immediatly (cf. Lars).
cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Reply to: