* Jonas Smedegaard: > Packages with noone explicitly nursing them is a bad thing. that's why > we have the routine of "oh - someone seems to be MIA - let's check what > packages is hurt by this". This is not (easily) trackable with > sponsored packages.
Exactly. The sponsorship relation is usually not documented publicly. Apart from the problem that it's not exactly straightforward to discover which DD authorized an upload, we do not know if the upload comes from a permanent sponsorship, or was a one-time upload to stand in for a DD who is temporarily unavailable (maybe due to vacation). My somewhat controversial remark which led to this thread was particularly inspired by bug #316276. Certainly a comparable situation can arise for DD-maintained packages as well, but we seem to have some procedures to deal with that. In additiona, fewer people are invovled, which helps with coordination and to avoid stepping on someone's toes. > So again: What is the responsibility of sponsoring, if not the full > responsibility of "everything the non-DD did to make the software > suitable for inclusion into Debian" (what I call "maintainance")? The implications of sponsorship puzzle me as well. There doesn't seem to be much agreement about what the exact duties of a sponsor are. Sponsors typically identify themselves only in eight base64-encoded bytes. Perhaps this contributes to the lack of transparency. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
