Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > I am not sure what we should do with problems like this. Not doing > anything sends a signal that DDs are held to a different standard than > DMs and NMs. I don't think that is a signal we should send.
Agreed. At least in terms of packaging expectations, DDs' should be equal to DMs'. > Ideally, we should be able to ask the maintainer to scale back and they > do so. However, what should we do if they either don't respond or > disagree? The TC can already rule over maintainership so perhaps that > is enough and we don't need any more procedures or rules to handle those > cases? What about adding some informal rule like this to dev-ref (or wherever): after n unacknowledged NMUs the package may be taken over without it being considered a "hostile takeover", more like "updating to reflect the de-facto maintainer". The new maintainer would in turn be free to RFA the package, request removal, team-maintain it or whatever. This would have the benefit of requiring some work from complainers and making it look less like idle finger-pointing, possibly reducing the social friction that happens anytime someone complains about someone else's work, regardless of the complaint's merits. Asking for TC intervention is also an option, but it's IMHO a bit extreme. Though I still find it better than the other proposed alternatives (DAM intervention, GR, whatever). Cheers -- Leo "costela" Antunes [insert a witty retort here] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
