>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining <norb...@preining.info> writes:
Norbert> On Tue, 21 May 2019, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> I think it's more open and equally clean for someone who's blog >> has been non- consensually removed to be able to put it back >> themselves immediately (if they think the removal was >> unreasonable) and point the remover at the Planet Debian admins. Norbert> Agreed. If this is not the case, what would come next? Norbert> Arbitrary take over of package maintainership because we Norbert> are unhappy with how X maintains their packages. First, removing something from planet is much more akin to an NMU than a maintainer change. And NMUs do happen all the time. And there are procedures and policies, and they are often followed. When they are not, sometimes it's hardly even remarked because the solution was so obviously the right thing. And sometimes it sparks significant discussion. The same is true of package maintainership though. We sometimes do change the maintainership because we're unhappy with how someone maintains their packages. That rarely uses the formal policy that goes before the TC who have the constitutional power to decide who maintains a package. Sometimes when a package maintainer is changed the response is hardly a squeak: it was generally regarded as the right thing. Sometimes it sparks a lot of discussion. And how people use the technical powers they have gets factored into our continuing estimate of trust of those people. As a matter of technical capability we can all do a bunch of arbitrary things. As a matter of practice we sometimes do things that according to written policies and procedures seem kind of arbitrary. And if anyone has a problem with it, we discuss and work towards either agreement that the arbitrary thing isn't something we want or an understanding of why it is something we want. It's frustrating if you want hard and fast written rules. But it works a lot better than if we did try to write down those rules. --Sam