Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > Enforcement of the BTS policy gets a few more flames because it only > happens when people are already being argumentative, and because it's > not a policy people are very well aware of in advance. OTOH, an > argument doesn't stop the policy being effective -- for instance the > debate over Enrico's suspension didn't stop Bug#224742 from being > properly closed, which was the point of the policy. > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=224742 > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/12/msg01966.html
I have a question about this one. Enrico was abusing the system (from the bug log, at least, I concur with that judgment). But is it a coincidence that he was sanctioned, and that you were the maintainer of the package whose BTS he was abusing? In other words, if someone does that to my package, do I get to say, "if you continue to abuse the BTS this way, your access to the control bot will be removed"? In other words, you have the power to revoke access to the control bot, and gee it sure came in handy when your package's BTS was being abused. But is that a special privilege that only your packages get? What about the rest of us? I admit, I'm confused here. On the one hand, I agree with both the assessment that Enrico was abusing the BTS, and with the imposed sanction. But it also sounds like you got to be victim, judge, and jailer, all at once. Do the rest of us get this nice streamlined process? If someone abuses the BTS on my package, do I have to convince anyone of the abuse before I get to sanction them from the BTS control bot, or do I have to go through someone else? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
