Re: Questions for all candidates re: interpersonal behavior
Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> wrote:
> Assume the demarcated hypothetical scenario to be true for the questions
> which follow.
I've pretty much ignored your scenario, and given some general answers
instead - I think the problem is general enough that a specific example
isn't really needed.
> Is any of this Debian's business? If so, which parts? What is the role
> of the DPL in such a situation?
If it's the case that a maintainer is unwilling to fix bugs and also
unwilling to accept NMUs, then it's Debian's business. The constitution
allows the technical committee to overrule developers for this sort of
reason, though it's obviously less than desirable to have to resort to
that. If all other mediation attempts have failed, then it seems
reasonable to ask the DPL (or a delegate thereof) to discuss the matter
with everyone involved.
It's not Debian's business whether two people like each other or not, up
until the point where that relationship results in a decrease in the
quality of the distribution.
> How would the answers to the previous three questions be different if
> either Andrew or I were a DPL delegate or an NM applicant?
They wouldn't be.
> Should there be rules codified to address any of the actions in the
> aforementioned scenario? Should there be rules codified to address any
> interpersonal behavior not mentioned in said scenario?
I think we have all the necessary codification to be able to deal with
the situation as is. The reasons we don't see it happen often are mostly
social - people don't really want to take each other to the technical
committee, and it's sometimes viewed as acceptable to refuse NMUs even
if you're failing to look after a package. I think the social change is
more important, and I think that's something that can happen without
needing to produce new rules.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.vote@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: