On 05/31/2015 02:58 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Well, it really boils down what we want the team's reputation to be. > The rule tests whether or not there is *team* commitment, and for that > you need *more than one person* actively caring for a package. If a > package fails the "two active uploaders" test, how can you argue that > the package was "team maintained"?
Hi Reinhard, I agree in principle. But for me, having two uploaders does not test if there is team commitment. It just makes sure that there is more than one person taking care of the package. And this is probably more important for the high profile packages than for some of the more obscure ones. I think it also helps prevent a new team member getting something sponsored into the team, and then running away. If someone suggests a new package is brought into the team, and it is accepted, then the team is making a commitment at that point. When a package gets behind, it is usually because the uploader(s) is/are a bit busy. The team should notice this on the QA page/dashboard and ping the uploader(s) on the list to see what the problem is. If they are temporarily busy, maybe they would be happy with a "Team Upload" by someone else? This is not meant to be a rant, it is just how I have observed some of the other packaging teams operating in Debian. Can I suggest that for new packages: 1. the one intending to ITP asks if the team are happy to bring in the new package 2. there is an "attempt" to find someone else to also love the package? I would be happy to try and draft a tweak to the policy if there was consensus (including some guidelines). Cheers, Ross
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers