Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: >> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +0000, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > said: >> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties, >> > We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I >> > looked all over the constitution, and failed. >> The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the maintenance of >> packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on the duty of doing so >> properly, in the manner specified by Policy et al. > > Eh? No, it doesn't. It says quite the opposite: > > 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do > work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task > which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do > it.
So? That's what I said. > However, they must not actively work against these rules and > decisions properly made under them. > If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody else needs to do the job, that _is_ to "actively work against these rules and decisions" in my book. YMMV, and all that. My position is, though, that this is the way it works in many real-world communities also, and quite frankly I fail to see why it shouldn't work that way in Debian. I'll save the question whether my original mesage was _that_ difficult to understand for some other time if you don't mind. -- Matthias Urlichs