On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Delegation for the Release Team"): >> On 06/01/14 at 11:56 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: >> > Explicitly again: Please see the last 7 years worth of bits mails, where >> > the release team have lowered this without advance notice, for BSPs etc. > ... >> First, I do not think that we have a NMU *policy*. What we have is a set >> of (non-binding) recommended procedures, including recommended delays, > > I think regarding our NMU policy as non-binding is a very bad idea. > NMUs are an important area of interaction between maintainers and > other contributors. Given the social contest, I think it is very > important that we have a clear understanding of what kind of NMU is > permissible when. Anything else is a recipe for people with different > understandings of the rules to end up arguing.
Additional layers of bureaucracy and inflexibility are the opposite direction that the project should be going in. > Can you imagine the reaction of a maintainer team if an NMUer > justified a breach of the policy on the grounds that it's not binding > but only "guidelines" ? I think the reaction here on -devel would be > unfavourable too. That is already effectively "enforced" by public shaming (mostly by the release team). It would be nice if those engaged in that enforcement were more kind. A simple tip to devref would be most of the time effective. Best wishes, Mike -- 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/CANTw=MOggZiAS9vpUC9K+TMcpc622uaibp4sPgU=odwnjg3...@mail.gmail.com