❦  1 décembre 2016 15:46 GMT, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> :

> There is a recent case where:
>  * The maintainer has done nothing to the package for many years,
>    other than infrequent (and usually short) emails to NAK
>    contributions from others;
>  * The package is years out of date compared to upstream, afflicted by
>    bitrot, and many users are asking for the new version;
>  * Several times, proposed updates have been prepared by contributors
>    but blocked by the maintainer;
>  * There are new maintainers ready and waiting, with a new package
>    ready for upload to sid for stretch;
>  * Now that the TC is involved the maintainer has written many emails
>    explaining their decisions to NAK uploads, but TC members are
>    clearly unconvinced on a technical level that those decisions were
>    right.
> Even in this extreme situation the TC has not seen fit to wrest the
> package away from the mainainer's deathgrip.

The process is still ongoing, slow, but still. I would have waited a bit
more to see where it is going before complaining of inaction.

> 3. Abolish maintainership entirely.

IMO, this would be a great option. We could keep an official maintainer
or a team to keep someone responsible (but we have many examples where
this is not sufficient). But otherwise, anyone should be able to upload
any package. Maybe the use of a delayed queue (15 days?) could be
mandated for those cases. We could also make the low threshold NMU
opt-out instead of opt-in. Any step towards less maintainership would be
The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what
you don't like, and do what you'd rather not.
                -- Mark Twain

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to