Re: Question for candidate Towns

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> Enforcement of the BTS policy gets a few more flames because it only
> happens when people are already being argumentative, and because it's
> not a policy people are very well aware of in advance. OTOH, an
> argument doesn't stop the policy being effective -- for instance the
> debate over Enrico's suspension didn't stop Bug#224742 from being
> properly closed, which was the point of the policy.
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=224742
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/12/msg01966.html

I have a question about this one.  Enrico was abusing the system (from
the bug log, at least, I concur with that judgment).  But is it a
coincidence that he was sanctioned, and that you were the maintainer
of the package whose BTS he was abusing?  In other words, if someone
does that to my package, do I get to say, "if you continue to abuse
the BTS this way, your access to the control bot will be removed"?

In other words, you have the power to revoke access to the control
bot, and gee it sure came in handy when your package's BTS was being
abused.  But is that a special privilege that only your packages get?
What about the rest of us?

I admit, I'm confused here.  On the one hand, I agree with both the
assessment that Enrico was abusing the BTS, and with the imposed
sanction.

But it also sounds like you got to be victim, judge, and jailer, all
at once.  Do the rest of us get this nice streamlined process?  If
someone abuses the BTS on my package, do I have to convince anyone of
the abuse before I get to sanction them from the BTS control bot, or
do I have to go through someone else?

Thomas