On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Hi,
> > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is > > responsible for the package. > > Huh?!? > > What does "Maintainer:" mean if not the entity being responsible for, > well, maintaining?!? Who is responsible for the package maintenance in the case where a non-DD is listed in "Maintainer:", and the package is obviosuly signed and uploaded (effectively sponsored) by a DD? I guess it is perfectly reasonable to expect that DD, being in the role of sponsor, is responsible for the package quality and further maintenance. Sponsors are full-fledged DDs, and trying to claim that they are not responsible, or are somehow less responsible than any other non-sponsoring DDs, for the uploads they have done, is obviously plain wrong. > > If the maintainer fails to keep the package in a useful shape it is > > the sponsor's responsibility to do so. And last but not least it > > should be the sponsor's decision to orphan a package if the maintainer > > is MIA or not doing his job properly. It is also the sponsors > > responsibility to try to figure out if a maintainer is willing to do > > his job longer than one upload before sponsoring a package at all. > > I have heard before the argument of the sponsor having responsibility, > but in reality I have *never* heard of sponsors actually being held > responsible for anything but the concrete upload of a specific packaging > release. > > ...which leads to my concern for high risk of drive-by contributions! ...hence the Sponsors (who are also a full-fledged DDs) are responsible. It is that simple. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201205311516.06495.danc...@spnet.net
