On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:43:27 +0100, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> I think the difference is that the MIA process is too conservative, > It starts off being polite, indeed. And patient. You never know the > reason why a person is not so active anymore. Tbm gave a talk about > how it is done and why it is done like that in Oslo, 2003 > (Debconf3). Worth seeing. >> and does not require an positive action on the part of maintainers, > Yes, it does. They need to fix their packages, or they get orphaned. > When no packages are left, we talk to DAM. This is the part I'm unsure about. I think, as che recently mentioned, he has been missing for years. His packages were properly orphaned, but the account cleanup never happened. I am given the impression that the primary focus of the MIA process is taking care of packages, not account cleanup. I applaud the effort by the DAM's to gather the required information on their own, taking the burden of writing whatever code that needs be written, as opposed to asking the MIA folks to add code/process over and beyond what they already do. I like this scratching your own itch as opposed to telling other people how they should do more work. This is the way free software should work. If the MIA people pro-actively add a process of sending delinquent account details to the DAM's in order to seed the WaT mails, I don't think this information would be discarded. manoj -- love, n.: When you don't want someone too close--because you're very sensitive to pleasure. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]