On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:21:23AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Sure. Its no criticism targetted at the PTS maintainers. Its not
> even criticism at all. Its just noteing that it got the attention of
> someone, but it seems it didn't get the attention of the
> project. Which would be quiet important, because those packages
> _are_ very important for our project.
Agreed; BTW, I did not interpret that as criticism at all. So, to
summarize, the PTS was *a* tentative to get the message through which,
as you observed, was not enough to reach the goal (assuming the goal
is agreed upon by the project).
> I think such a new core-team would also be a good chance, to attract
> some fresh blood. So how to proceed from here? It seems that the
> only solution is...
<snip>
> .. to make the core-team the actual maintenance team and asking the
> existing maintainers to join it. In the end I don't have a problem
> if this team is somewhat bigger.
For what is worth, that's exactly the experience I had with my
participation in the maintenance of popular packages (even though not
as important as the one we are mentioning here).
1) in the beginning there was the maintainer
2) then the maintainer get overloaded and asked for help
3) then a team was formed federating together some of the people who
replied
4) then, with time, the old maintainer faded away and a new structure
(possibly with tasks and leadership) emerged in the new team
That's IME the best possible road from sole and overloaded maintainers
to sane team maintenance. As you observe in another post, the delicate
part is of course "encouraging" (2) when the sole maintainer is
overloaded but not willing to admit it.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature