I would like to take a step back and frame what I see as the broader structural aspect of this discussion.
The question is not only whether the Uploaders field should be optional for team-maintained packages, but whether doing so effectively redefines MIA's mandate. If explicit person -> package associations become optional, individual inactivity within teams would no longer be a project-level concern. MIA could then no longer operate under its current model, as one of the structured signals linking individuals to packages would not be consistently available. While other heuristics may still exist, they are not equivalent to an explicit and declared association, and are operationally much more expensive. Responsibility for recognizing and handling inactivity would rest entirely with the teams. As this thread shows, there are differing interpretations of what "team responsibility" entails in practice. This suggests the change is not merely a metadata adjustment, but a shift in expectations about accountability and recovery. In practice, many packages - even within established teams - are effectively driven by one or a few individuals. When responsibility is purely collective, inactivity can become less visible, particularly in smaller or less structured teams where attempts to contact the team may not result in any response. If the project considers this trade-off acceptable, the resulting mandate change for MIA should be understood as deliberate. I've CC'ed the other MIA team members via the team aliases in case they want to chime in. Cheers, -- tobi
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
