Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Assume the demarcated hypothetical scenario to be true for the questions > which follow.
I've pretty much ignored your scenario, and given some general answers instead - I think the problem is general enough that a specific example isn't really needed. > Is any of this Debian's business? If so, which parts? What is the role > of the DPL in such a situation? If it's the case that a maintainer is unwilling to fix bugs and also unwilling to accept NMUs, then it's Debian's business. The constitution allows the technical committee to overrule developers for this sort of reason, though it's obviously less than desirable to have to resort to that. If all other mediation attempts have failed, then it seems reasonable to ask the DPL (or a delegate thereof) to discuss the matter with everyone involved. It's not Debian's business whether two people like each other or not, up until the point where that relationship results in a decrease in the quality of the distribution. > How would the answers to the previous three questions be different if > either Andrew or I were a DPL delegate or an NM applicant? They wouldn't be. > Should there be rules codified to address any of the actions in the > aforementioned scenario? Should there be rules codified to address any > interpersonal behavior not mentioned in said scenario? I think we have all the necessary codification to be able to deal with the situation as is. The reasons we don't see it happen often are mostly social - people don't really want to take each other to the technical committee, and it's sometimes viewed as acceptable to refuse NMUs even if you're failing to look after a package. I think the social change is more important, and I think that's something that can happen without needing to produce new rules. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
