[honouring m-f-t] On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:35:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:15:12PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:22:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Anthony Towns writes ("Two GR concepts for dicussion"): > > > > I think the process should involve: > > > > [...] > > > This sounds like a good idea to me.
> > > I'm not sure exactly what the criteria would be but basically you'd > > > diff the previous and new packages and allow only certain kinds of > > > changes (eg, changes to existing programs in /usr/bin would be fine). > > In what ways can maintainers of packages generally screw over users of > > other packages? Don't people notice fairly soon and certainly before > > the packages are out of unstable? > > I imagine this is easier with library packages with many dependent > > packages but I can't imagine those would often be maintained by DMs. > If DMs not maintaining libraries is how you expect this problem to be > mitigated, you might want to consider making this an explicit policy. Not really. I don't think discouraging competent DMs from maintaining libraries is a good idea (hopefully a lower barrier to entry to the archive will also encourage people to join NM). I really do think that an easy reovcation procedure where a few (2? 3?) DDs can sign mails to remove a DM from the keyring is the way to moderate this. This could even be automated. -- ----------( "This isn't flying, it's falling with style" -- )---------- Simon ----( Buzz Lightyear )---- Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]