Bob Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stefan Gybas wrote: > >> Ean has already stated that Arnaud and Ben should be a co-maintainer >> of Kaffe in >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2004/debian-java-200401/msg00086.html. Why >> should Arnaud not upload if Ean is not responding? Ean should IMHO not >> be the "main maintainer" and decide about uploads if other maintainers >> do most of the work and are in closer contact with upstream. > > I'm not arguing that Arnaud shouldn't upload. I'm arguing that the > uploads should have been NMUs until Ean either changes the Uploaders: > field, or sends email that says "you are co-maintainers; go ahead and > change the Uploaders: field." The mail you reference comes close to > making Ben & Arnaud co-maintainers, but doesn't in fact do so.
Maybe you are a joker or something? > My point is that however much you don't want Ean to be the main > maintainer, he is currently. Changing that should be done either by > petitioning him to change the status himself, or by going through the > standard methods to change a maintainer like announcing an intent to > hijack/work through the debian-qa group. I did not find the exact procedure in devref, can you point me somewhere to be the more specific about this, thanks. > Ean is IMHO being very calm and professional about this whole thing. Yes, you must be a joker! > One only has to read debian-devel for a month or so to see examples > lesser examples of stepping on a developer's prerogatives like NMUs > generate short tempers and massive flame wars. One only has to read debian-devel for a year or so to see examples of why some of us are a little bored about the whole thing. -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `-
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
