OOps... took out the wrong addresses in the CC field... When maintainer's change, who's going to change the subscription list? The physical maintainer's via a "(un)subscribe" message? That would still leave things in the hands of a physical maintainer... Automaticly from a package upload would still be suseptable to outdated packages... A volunteer?
On 11-Dec-98 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be a valid address. Would >> that be sufficient for you? > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ? > > **dazzle** > > With an email address like that, there must be a great idea behind it :-) > > Seriously, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > whatever else could reasonable be expected to be considered "intuitive", > "logical" and "sensible" by anyone trying to find the right guy to write > to should also know how to deal with administrative requests re. the > packages lists. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is a real gem > though, I must admit and I love it :-) > > I would like to extend the current proposal more generally with regard to > the notion of a "package", but first I would like to write down some of > my opinions of how the packages.debian.org lists should be implemented: > > 1 - for every package "foo", there should automatically be a mailinglist > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The maintainer of "foo" must always be on the > mailinglist, but others might subscribe or be subscribed (see below) as > well. > > 2 - the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list should be the primary contact address for all > things related to the "foo" package, e.g all bugreports should be > forwarded to this list. > > 3 - the "main" maintainer of "foo" and the packages.debian.org lists > maintainer should have administrative powers for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. > > 4 - preferrably, packages.debian.org lists should be open to public > subscription, optionally with a system defaulting read-only access, > with more rights grantable by the list administrator. > > 5 - for every virtual package "bar", there should equally be a > [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. The joint maintainers of all real packages > providing > a virtual package "bar" should agree on an administrator. > > IMHO ideally, policy should state that more generally, a virtual package > needs to have a maintainer, appointed or chosen from the group of > maintainers of all real packages providing the virtual package. Apart > from the intrinsic benefits of symmetry and clarity, this would > particularly obviate the need to make a special case for rule 5, by > folding it back into rule 1. > > Moreover, "special-interest packages" (or focus groups) could be > formalized and get a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. Without any package actually > providing "baz," a lot of packages could be involved with or affected by > "baz." Think "xfree," "perl," python," "webserver," "emacs" or "base" > instead of "baz" and it makes a lot of practical sense to do this. > > Again, a central responsible person should be appointed (chosen.) Again, > the benefits of the more generalised and standardised speak for > themselves: more standardisation and symmetry, no need to spam -devel > with very detailed and topical discussions, better addressing of > responsibilities not by enforcement, but by creating clarity and an > infrastructure for focused debate. > > Briefly returning back to the initial issue of packages.debian.org lists: > > By rule 1, we'll have an intuitive contact address for each package in the > distribution. > > By rule 2, it will also be a guaranteed address. > > By rule 3 and 4, the individual maintainer is free to use "his" list for > whatever style of development he likes (without having to buy into the > particularities of whatever MTA.) > > Another great benefit of this scheme is that when a maintainer goes AWOL, > the project secretary (or his delegate for maintainer maintenance) can > easily reset the main maintainer [subscription] address and best of all, > there will be no history problems, as [EMAIL PROTECTED] will always point to > the current maintainer of package "foo." > > Cheers, > > > Joost > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* =========================================================================
pgpFGeUZO407p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
