On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:16:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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?
No, I think we need to be able to do QA tasks anyway -- for packages like
cruft and ifupdown to use examples that don't need to offend anyone else
-- and I don't think there's any benefit to be had from making it hard
for people to provide valuable contributions.
> Why would
> trying to assure ourselves that developers will follow procedures be a
> punishment, rather than an act of self-preservation?
If it were an act of self-preservation, it'd need to be applied
consistently. Badly maintained packages cause the exact same problems
whether that's due to someone focussing their efforts elsewhere within
Debian, or outside of it.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature