Manoj: > I have only passing interest in this topic, but I wanted to > point out that on *can* hold people resposible for things even i a > volunteer project (I most definitely am responsible for my packages), > we merely can not discipline them for failing to meet their > responsibilities, apart from the prospect of negative public > opinion. I think this is a distinction which is not unimportant.
I think we do not want to foster a `negative public opinion' of any maintainer that we still want to be part of the Project. What do you mean be `hold responsible for' ? As I said in my article: ] I can think of only two possible reason for saying that a package ] might be required to have only one maintainer: ] ] 1. Decisionmaking in case of disagreement. This is a red herring; ... ] 2. Blame. ... What other reason are you suggesting, or do you think that blame is a useful way for us to interact ? > One only needs look at the bug list for one of the peioneering > multi-maintainer packages (namely; dpkg) to think that possibly when > a goup is responsible for a package, in reality no one is responsible > for it. What about [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? The bug system has been maintained and run by Guy and me jointly for the past goodness knows how long, and hardly anyone has even noticed. Ian. -- E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
