Dominik George <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > >>this is the whole point of making the Uploader field optional. When absent, >>it >>means that every team member is equally in chage for the packag > > Ah no, please not! At least not with what I understand as "in charge of". > > Let's say someone joins the Python packaging team, and uploads a > package without an Uplaoders entry. Now I am in charge of this > package.
No. It means the team is in charge. > What does this entail? Do I constantly have to monitor upstream? Do I, > personally, get all the maintainer duties? And everyone else in the > team as well? No. The package is a shared responsibility, which is my perception of the point of doing team-maintained package in the first place. If you don't want shared responsibility, then why team-maintain something? > That won't work. I don't want all maintainer duties for all the > thousands of packages under the Python team, and if "everyone" is in > charge, then noone is in charge. Instead, if noone cares enough to put > on the "in charge" hat, the package should be dropped from the team. Huh? What's the point of having team-maintained packages at all with that perspective? Maybe it helps to think about this differently, and consider that it is possible to not have a single-maintainer strong ownership model of package maintainance. It is fine for people to have the single-maintainer model and still be able to do what they want. Nobody has suggested to remove the Uploaders field. Only to make it optional, for those who prefer another way. > I may have missed essential parts of the discussion, but as I see it, > making the Uoploaders field optional, with the semantics described > above, would *ensure* that all team maintained packages fly under the > radar, contrary to what it should do. I don't think anyone has suggested your semantics, or that it follows from anything part of the Debian Policy or any other document. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
