Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> >Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
> >...
> >> <debate>
> >> However, one of the group should be nominated to have the prime
> >> responsibility for the package. This maintainer's address should be
> >> listed in the Group-leader control field. The group leader has the
> >> particular responsibility of ensuring that Debian policy is followed
> >> and is the person who will be contacted if messages to the group
> >> alias get no response.
> >> </debate>
> >
> >What is the purpose of this ? I disagree with it.
>
> The purpose is to see to it that there is an individual who is deemed
> ultimately responsible.
So that you can blame them ? How is that helpful ? Or for some other
reason ?
> If there is a group with no leader, there is
> no-one to chase when things go wrong. Any co-operative effort needs
> co-ordination or it will fall apart. [When things are working well, the
> co-ordinator may not need to do anything, of course, but things do not
> always work well.]
If the `leader' isn't interested, why do you think that having their
email address in a package field will help ?
I think we should leave the decision about how each package is managed
up to the people who do it.
Ian.
