On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 04:08:13PM -0700, Craig Brozefsky wrote: > > [was it really neccessary to crosspost to three lists?] > > I think all three are appropriate but if you have a suggestion I would > be open to hearing it.
My suggestion was the Reply-To: field... but never mind now, we already polluted all three lists. > > Currently, they have no right to do absolutely anything on their own, > > and we want to change that. > > They should not have that right IMO, but that is a discussion for > another thread. Quality Assurance members by definition should have the right to fix bugs in the distribution, don't you agree? > > The forced orphaning (as you call it) is something we need, since there > > can be packages that can currently rot for a couple of releases (yes!) > > in the archive, and nobody has the right to touch them, since nobody > > knows where is the maintainer and will he mind. > > The mechanism for handling AWOL maintainers needs to be well-thought > if we are going to attempt to codify it. The presented policy which > puts these decisions into the hands of the QA group, and with a > definition that does not even reflect their own intent, does not seem > acceptable to me. Indeed, I agree the text should be changed. > > Did I mention that I will accept any patches you (or anyone else) makes > > against the text? Output of `diff -u` is preffered. > > I would just remove the paragraph defining QAs ability to orphan > packages. I think that something more along the lines of a policy > that QA will bring to public attention those packages that are not > being maintained. That was also one of the ideas, to post to the -qa list when a package needs to be uploaded with QA as the maintainer... -- enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
