On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:21:10 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > On 12-02-19 at 08:44am, David Bremner wrote: > > We have both sponsoring and co-maintenance; there is no rule that says > > co-maintainers have have to be DD/DMs. > > Since only DD/DMs can upload co-maintained packages, same rule applies > there. > > Or did I miss your point?
My point is/was that what you suggest sounds more like co-maintenance to me. So, people who dislike the current sponsoring system (i.e. leaving the sponsoree as the uploader in changelog) can co-maintain instead. Maybe we are proposing the same set of actions, and just giving it different names (your "improved sponsoring" is my "co-maintenance"). Obviously you are free to do what you like when you sponsor. A different, and more contentious point, is what the project should prefer. Given the state of near-collapse (by ratio of requests to active sponsors) of the sponsoring system, I would hesitate to impose too many requirements the process. As we both know, one person's innocuous requirement (e.g. let's all use dh7) is another persons reason to walk away from an activity. d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obsu262b.fsf@zancas.localnet
