Hi Ricardo, (hi MIA folks, I assume you are subscribed to -qa, but here is the start of the thread: [1])
On 28.09.2012 22:51, Ricardo Mones wrote: > If the above criteria only apply to one package but the rest of > maintainer's packages is being maintained, informing the MIA team should > be bypassed: maintainer is just neglecting a single package but not MIA. > And in fact there's little the MIA team can do with those maintainers, so > this procedure could be a nicer alternative. I assumed they prefer to be pinged for any case, where people suspect someone else being unresponsive with respect to package maintenance. That said, I didn't ask them. I'm CC-ing MIA folks and explicitly ask about their opinion on the proposal in general, and the MIA team part in particular. > Otherwise the MIA team should be Cc-ed first, when reporting the bug: the > maintainer may be very likely MIA, I don't see a reason to wait more. And > if MIA team achieves a response quicker, the salvage procedure bug can be > fixed faster. As far as I know the MIA procedures (especially for members) take a very long time [2] because this may also include changes in the DM/DD keyrings. That's a situation I perfectly understand given they are really initiating a procedure which may eventually revoke archive upload rights. That's something which needs to be done careful and slowly. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2012/09/msg00050.html [2] http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/MIATeam -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature