Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> writes: > Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: > >> Quoting Sebastiaan Couwenberg (2026-08-15 11:07:03) >>> On 8/15/26 10:25 AM, Tobias Frost wrote:
>> If noone in a team wants to commit to a package by adding themselves as >> in the Uploaders field, it seems that package is team-*un*maintained >> and that fact should be acknowledged by moving the package to QA team. > > I disagree -- and think this is at the core of what proper "team" > maintainance of packages could be. > > To me, team maintainance would be one where the team as a collective > take responsibility for a package, but no individual person insists on > the ego-boost of assigning personal ownership of the outcome > Thus, by getting rid of the Maintainer/Uploader fields, I believe we > could get a better collective long-term outcome for packages. > Yes, there will be local "accidents" where this leads to bad mistakes > in packages by people not familiar enough with a package. This will > be used as an argument against this concept I think the argument for these fields isnt really about quality, but more about the benefits of responsibility: sometimes there are different ways of doing things (when do we start a transition? tabs or spaces in postinst? etc) and it's better if a small known group makes sets the direction to avoid inconsistency, uncertainty and, hopefully, arguments. It can also encourage people to take ownership and feel involved. (And keeping these fields in any form doesnt have to mean "only the maintainer can ever make a change to this package", or "there has to be a maintainer for every package" - fwiw i agree that lintian field is unhelpful and should be downgraded)
