On Sunday 24 June 2007 15:10, Benjamin BAYART wrote: > My point is that, when I find a software that is broken, what should I > do with it if there is no DD to maintain it? Your point leads to > answering "let it be broken, since you do not want to spend hours every > week reading mailing lists". > > I clearly do not want to get involved in what is required from a DD > (months arguing issues about licences, reading lists like the one > here, etc). I do not think that this is a fair characterisation of what is required of being a DD. There's no requirement to read any list except debian-devel-announce, which has less than one post per day on average. There's no need to get involved in licensing discussions, except of course when they concern your packages. To take myself as an example, I hardly ever take part in licensing discussions. I've also unsubscribed from several "core" lists like debian-devel or debian-project when the signal to noise ratio was very low. This hasn't really impacted my work to date. As a maintianer your job is to keep your packages in shape. Going beyond that is fully optional, and many DD's make full use of that optionality. So the core problem here might just be a misconception of what is required to be a DD. That should be solvable. Thijs
Attachment:
pgp3egJzKZS3D.pgp
Description: PGP signature