Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> writes: >> Which is, as is the case with >> most (if not all) teams in Debian, somewhat subjective and in a >> continous phase of discussion, with written-down policies normally out >> of style with significant portion of the actual content of the archive. >> Which has its advantages and disadvantages. Having stringent rules on >> how to make progress is not a pre-requisite for progress. >> >> Your questions are spot on, and I agree it would be nice to have them >> answered, but I think they are better framed as Debian Commons internal >> team discussions rather than any global Debian policy change. At least >> initially, until answers are clear and documented... was that your >> intention? I read it as applying more broadly. > > As a Debian contributor, I could discover a package poorly maintained > inside Debian Commons and might be interested in "salvaging" it to > maintain it myself, instead of maintaining it following the Debian > Commons procedures. So yes, I think that it applies more broadly, > because people outside Debian Commons will need to interface with Debian > Commons.
How is that different from when someone outside of Debian Team $FOO discovers a poorly maintained package in Debian Team $FOO? I've encountered that situation a couple of time, with varying levels of success to make progress. Maybe this discussion is not really about Debian Commons but more about poorly maintained packages, and what to do about them generally. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
