On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:54:13 Scott Kitterman wrote: Hi,
> > ...hence the Sponsors (who are also a full-fledged DDs) are responsible. > > It is that simple. > > If it's really that simple, one should never sponsor a package one doesn't > care to maintain. If this is the case, we should just do away with > sponsorship and require the uploader to be either Maintainer or in > Uploaders unless it's an NMU (note: I don't think this is what we want). I don't think this is that black and white indeed. In the case of unresponsive non-DD maintainer, obviously the Sponsors (having more powerful pedals and knobs than the sponsoree wrt to the archive) have several courses of action (in no particular order; various combinations are also possible): * step in and maintain the package themselves * ask for help, search for co-maintainers, etc * suggest orphanage * you name it and I guess this is a very basic, but fairly sufficient measure to handle the the case of run-away non-DD maintainers. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- 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/201206011806.53799.danc...@spnet.net
