On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 23:23, Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> wrote: > > On 17194 March 1977, Luca Boccassi wrote: > >> Simple packages need someone who is responsible and responsive for > >> them > >> in the long run and know there history much more than needing > >> sporadic > >> contributions. > > ...right up until the point where that "bus factor of 1" moves > > on/changes priorities/changes job/etc and the package is abandoned. > > Fortunately that never happens, though! > > And interestingly, this does NOT need required team maintainance. It > does NOT need "package must be in git". It does NOT need "package must > be on salsa".
True, they are not strictly needed - however, all of those things do make everything orders of magnitude easier and more streamlined for most contributors, especially new ones. > It "only" needs good procedures in taking over maintainership of > abandoned packages. And hey, for clearly abandoned packages, we have > that, and it works. And yet abandoned packages are still a thing, and there is still an enormous amount of bureaucracy in the way. > The problem is with people who are *not* clearly gone. Who are around > and block changes to "my package, my way, i ignore all outside wishes". > Or who are around and work against project wishes, in some way. And no > amount of "force a team on everyone" and no amount of "you must use > salsa" will solve this problem. While creating problems elsewhere. I don't know, it seems counter-intuitive to me to suggest that "team maintenance" and "my package, my way" are unrelated.
