❦ 1 décembre 2016 15:46 GMT, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> :
> There is a recent case where:
> * The maintainer has done nothing to the package for many years,
> other than infrequent (and usually short) emails to NAK
> contributions from others;
> * The package is years out of date compared to upstream, afflicted by
> bitrot, and many users are asking for the new version;
> * Several times, proposed updates have been prepared by contributors
> but blocked by the maintainer;
> * There are new maintainers ready and waiting, with a new package
> ready for upload to sid for stretch;
> * Now that the TC is involved the maintainer has written many emails
> explaining their decisions to NAK uploads, but TC members are
> clearly unconvinced on a technical level that those decisions were
> right.
> Even in this extreme situation the TC has not seen fit to wrest the
> package away from the mainainer's deathgrip.
The process is still ongoing, slow, but still. I would have waited a bit
more to see where it is going before complaining of inaction.
> 3. Abolish maintainership entirely.
IMO, this would be a great option. We could keep an official maintainer
or a team to keep someone responsible (but we have many examples where
this is not sufficient). But otherwise, anyone should be able to upload
any package. Maybe the use of a delayed queue (15 days?) could be
mandated for those cases. We could also make the low threshold NMU
opt-out instead of opt-in. Any step towards less maintainership would be
great.
--
The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what
you don't like, and do what you'd rather not.
-- Mark Twain
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
