Anthony Towns wrote: [...] > Fallback plans are important though, and in this case if we're not able > to get in a position where maintainers are able to keep control of their > RC bug count (which is to say, keep it at zero), we'll have to consider > more drastic measures. An obvious one is to transfer packages that aren't > being maintained at an acceptable level to new maintainers, whether the > existing maintainer likes it or not. Some simple measures for this are > things like "has this package had any RC bug open for more than a month or > two", or "has this package had an RC bug open for more than a week or so > without any response". Even if you ignore all of the preceeding message, > you might like to ensure that those two criteria never apply to you.
Would it be a silly idea to consider having something official in policy (or somewhere) outlining a minimal set of QA standards that every debian developer agrees to abide by (in the future as a standard part of the NM process), with the up-front understanding that some kind of intervention process (which should obviously have built-in flexibility, but should be able to ultimately, and as a last resort, result in loss of packages and/or developer status) can/will be entered into otherwise? A few fair, open, clear standards, a level playing field, all very sensible, no surprises for anyone. -- Stephen M. Gava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>