Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

]] Ian Jackson > Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and > 1 more messages]"): > Lars Wirzenius > > > I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package > > > ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or > > >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"): Lars Wirzenius > > I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package > > ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or > > something, listing maintainers

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

]] Lars Wirzenius > I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package > ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or > something, listing maintainers who are OK if someone hijacks their > package if the maintainer isn't taking good care of it. Would

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:02:27PM +0100, Laura Arjona Reina wrote: > I have just created the page: > > https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdAdoption > > and added myself to the list. I've added myself to the list. -- I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh signature.asc

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Dear all El 05/12/16 a las 19:13, Lars Wirzenius escribió: > We've had the "strong package ownership" concept be a problem in > various ways. Many years ago people were afraid of making NMUs to fix > bugs, even RC bugs, and I started the > https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu page. It's got

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

We've had the "strong package ownership" concept be a problem in various ways. Many years ago people were afraid of making NMUs to fix bugs, even RC bugs, and I started the https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu page. It's got over 300 maintainers now, and NMUs are quite normal, though I suspect

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"): > Ian Jackson writes: > > The TC has never desposed an existing maintainer, and very rarely even > > overturned an individual decision. > > There is a widespread

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Ian Jackson writes: > Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): >> We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, which *in theory* is >> what we already have > Well, no. What we have is a kind of sticky door when the

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Since I didn't want to sent too many more emails, I'll make three short replies in one email... Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, which *in theory* is > what we already have Well, no. What we have is a