Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: >> 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, and >> through social means of the Uploader field signal that others should not >> feel the same level of ownership. > > Do you mean "could be" and "would be" as future tense?
Yes. > I am not simply nitpicking here - I genuinely find it quite confusing > to mix in speculations about future Debian into a conversation about > current rules in Debian. Right, sorry for adding to that confusion. I can't claim to understand what the current policy really is, or how it is supposed to be implemented. I'm not sure the MIA team post makes that a lot more clearer either. What seems clear is that the field is not handled in a consistent way across the project, and the policies around the fields could be clarified further. So I jumped into improvement mode, and wanted to take a step back and questioning the basics. I'm not sure we'll be able to find consensus on this topic easily, but I think the current situation around Maintainer/Uploader fields has a social dimension that affects long-term sustainability of Debian so it is worthy of discussion. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
