Hi Sam, surprising statements from you ...
On Wed, 22 May 2019, Sam Hartman wrote: > The same is true of package maintainership though. We sometimes do > change the maintainership because we're unhappy with how someone > maintains their packages. That rarely uses the formal policy that goes ??? This seems to be new - at least when I became DD some 10+ years ago this was not the case, and it was completely out of discussion to do this. Why would we need "package salvaging" (thanks Paul for that!) https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#package-salvaging if we can change package maintainership just like that? I will remember your statement the next time I consider another maintainers packaging efforts insufficient. > As a matter of technical capability we can all do a bunch of arbitrary > things. As a matter of practice we sometimes do things that according > to written policies and procedures seem kind of arbitrary. And if I am not sure what you mean with *we*, but I am sure that most "normal" DD are not allowed to overstep the rules that easily. > It's frustrating if you want hard and fast written rules. But it works > a lot better than if we did try to write down those rules. I agree with you that having less rules would be much better - that is exactely what I proposed back then when the CoC was introduced. But Debian tries to govern even the most ungovernable things with rules. So all in all, your position is very surprising, and I can only assume that the rules and acceptable behaviour you are talking about are others than those that apply to the average DD. Best Norbert -- PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13