* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-19 18:19]:
> > > action ("We should thank them for their efforts, put them on the
> > > emeritus keyring, and find new maintainers for their packages.") do you
> >
> > I do that and I never said otherwise.
>
> Well, actually, you said:
>
> > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their packages,
> > inform the keyring maintainer that they are leaving the project [1])
> > should not be treated the same as maintainers who leave the project
> > properly.
>
> ...in Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[1]
Right, I see were the misunderstanding comes from. Let's quote the
whole text from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00201.html
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 21:21]:
> > People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
> > like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
> > their efforts, put them on the emeritus keyring, and find new
> > maintainers for their packages.
> I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their packages,
> inform the keyring maintainer that they are leaving the project [1])
> should not be treated the same as maintainers who leave the project
> properly.
I should not have quoted both sentences you said. My "I disagree with this"
refers to your first sentence only. I agree with the second sentence. My
disagreement was only about re-admission to the project where I think they
should not be treated the same, not about thanking them for the work they've
done. Sorry for the confusion.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
