Duncan, I agree, but most likely to stay around is the PI, as much of the work is students and post docs, who’s least likely to respond. Even with a responsible person, not easy for them to pass on as it’s not their job or any easy thing to ask if it wasn’t the PI. Also making a post doc or student as the lead for multiple packages wouldn’t be appropriate or solve the issue. The group email would have a priority Of the “true” maintainer plus other helpers. Just figured we’d get the confirmation before moving forward.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:15 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25/06/2019 5:52 p.m., John Muschelli wrote: > > So a single email is not a mailing list and it's a research group, so not > > really a corporate entity. I don't see WHY explicitly this isn't > allowed. > > I understand that this decision has been made with a lot of thought in > > mind, though. This would make it much easier for research groups to not > > orphan packages because the maintainer/student leaves and we can't really > > centralize our code bases. > > Pick one member of the group to be the maintainer. Don't choose someone > who is likely to leave, choose a responsible person who is likely to be > around a long time. If that person does leave, being responsible, > they'll pass the role to someone else in the group. If they don't, > another member of the group can volunteer to CRAN to take over as > maintainer after the package is orphaned because the original maintainer > is not responding to CRAN requests. > > On the other hand, if you were allowed to choose the group email as > maintainer, requests from CRAN could be ignored, because everyone might > assume it's someone else's responsibility to respond. > > Duncan Murdoch > -- John [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel