On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:37:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:54:05PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > > 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. > > Also note that people who *do* apply again for NM after having resigned > > sometimes (often?) get their account back immediatly (cf. Lars). > AFAIK, they _always_ get their account back immediately without requiring > extensive justification (well, presuming they're obviously the same > person, and maybe a "i'm looking at taking up maintenace of foo.deb" > explanation is expected -- but those should apply equally to people who > retired too). That's not what Martin seems to be saying, though: that > seems to be to put them through n-m not as a first point of contact to > get their account unlocked, but as a way of retraining them and ensuring > they won't be as irresponsible again, and effectively punishing them > for not following procedure. Do you believe instead that their stated willingness to contribute automatically justifies risking the QA/MIA workload associated with cleaning up after the developer if they disappear again? Why would trying to assure ourselves that developers will follow procedures be a punishment, rather than an act of self-preservation? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature