* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120319 22:27]: > Andreas Barth <a...@ayous.org> writes: > > > How about: > > > BC. The Technical Committee have been petitioned to decide on the > > maintainership of the python packes. We agree with the substance of > > the complaint, but do not feel able to directly select the replacement > > maintainers. Therefore: > > > > We require the current python package manager to hand over the > > package to a team of at least three maintainers (where he may be > > one of the maintainers but without veto power) who are actually > > active within the debian python community. This needs to be done > > latest 6 weeks after the vote has ended. Failing that, the > > Tech Ctte exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the Constitution to > > remove the current maintainer of the Python interpretor packages. > > It delegates the task of choosing a new maintenance team for the > > Python packages to the DPL. > > I don't have any objections to that in terms of process or the outcomes > I'd expect, although that's rather a hard thing to ask someone to do.
You think it's worse than just orphan the package now and/or ask the DPL to choose a new maintainer? (I would say it's the least agressive one of the variants that do require a change of the maintainer, as Matthias has some say of the new maintainer team as long as it's a team but YMMV. Of course, it's not nice. But no of the options is nice.) Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
