[Jonas Smedegaard] > Is my point clear now (even if is may disagree with my reasoning)?
I find your point quite clear, but suspect you misunderstood those claiming the sponsor have responsibilities regarding package maintenance. To me it is obvious that the sponsor is also responsible for a package, when the maintainer become unresponsive or missing. When the maintainer is active and available, the sponsor do not have to step in and the responsibility is "sleeping". :) The maintainer is responsible in the day to day maintenance, but when I sponsor packages I also keep in mind that I might end up having to care about the package some time in the future if the listed maintainer looses interest or disappears for other reasons. You seem to argue that this should not be the case. Is this because of your current sponsor practice, or is there some other experience behind your view on the responsibilities of a package sponsor in Debian? -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2fl62bbmloo....@login2.uio.no
