Scripsit "Thaddeus H. Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm wrote:
>> It is already the case that "flatly refusing to give away the package >> or even allow co-maintenance" *should* not happen at all and, if it >> does happen, *should* not prevent the package from eventually being >> given to somebody who is willing to keep it properly maintained. >> I agree that our mechanism for turning those "should"s into "do"s are >> not, empirically, always working well. But simply adding by fiat >> another requirement for the maintainer to flatly refuse to follow is >> not likely to help solving the underlying problem. > We have such a mechanism? I didn't know this. I didn't actually look it up, but even if the only mechanism we have is "work it out on the mailing lists and appeal to the DPL / tech-ctte / a GR in case of stuckness", it is still a mechanism, at least for my rhetorical purposes :-) > Never having personally encountered a serious problem with an > intransigent maintainer, I do not know much about it, but now you make > me curious. Sorry to have raised your expectations unwarrantedly. -- Henning Makholm "Monarki, er ikke noget materielt ... Borger!" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
