Re: On the "Debian Maintainers" GR
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
> I still lack the reason why someone would not be DD for political
> reasons _and_ wanting to help improving Debian at the same time. Yes I
> know about Matthew, he can do whatever he likes, but I don't really care
> about him being a diva. I disagree that Debian should split hairs in
> four for such people.
Yeah, I think I agree with this. I don't see how being a Debian
Maintainer is any less being associated with the project than being a
Debian Developer, and if someone wants to sacrifice their DD rights to
make a point, well, having to then do things like work through a sponsor
is what makes it a sacrifice, no?
> And I have also issues with every other use case that have been talked
> about yet. Yes, even the "upstream wants to package his stuff", I'm not
> sure we want to have tuomov-like people arguing with the release team
> about the silliness of stable releases, and for most of the upstreams,
> there is what, 10 uploads a year ? maybe 20 with snapshots.. Well,
> that's the kind of load that is easy to deal with as a sponsor. Really.
> Having people in DM for 10 uploads a year is a _huge_ overkill. FWIW
> that's the number of packages I upload in a day when I'm doing QA work
> e.g..
My primary worry about this proposal is that it leads to an increasing
number of packages in the archive that are someone's pet project,
maintained by someone who isn't keeping up with Debian-wide changes, and
which have to be chased down every time we do a major transition. I don't
think adding more package maintainers who aren't connected with what's
going on with the rest of the project is a great idea. At least with
sponsored packages, the sponsor in theory should be paying attention.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: