Hi, On 30/03/14 at 19:34 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:21:06AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes: > > > > > assume that a package maintainer is active but is doing a bad job > > > regarding our standards (things like ignoring problems in stable, breaking > > > backwards compatibility for no good reason, not packaging new upstream > > > versions in unstable, etc) and is not really cooperative (closing bugs > > > hastily, not responding to help offers). > > > > > > What shall we do in those situations? > > > > > > Best case, I'm very motivated and I hijack the package but assume that I'm > > > just interested in having a working package because it's a dependency of a > > > package that I use but that I don't care enough to take it over. What are > > > my options? > > > > On a similar topic, a couple of years ago, there was an effort to set up > > a salvaging process. Not quite for the situation Raphael describes, but > > somewhat related. My question to both candidates would be: what's your > > opinion on salvaging packages? If favourable, what do you think, could > > move it forward? > > > > I'm certainly keen to ensure the salvaging work goes ahead - to move it > forward though I think it needs a bit of work done on dev-ref to > formalise it, and have it proposed. We should make sure we're not > duplicating the work of the MIA team. (Agreed) > For maintainers who are active, and there's a technical disagreement > about how a package is maintained, then the tech-ctte is the correct > place to take the issue. Well, I think that the DPL has a role to play here, too, by using mediation in order to restore dialogue, have each party see the issue with the other party's point of view, etc. That's something I have been involved with on at least two occasions during my term. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature