On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:52:02PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > > The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
> > > >
> > > > 1. it has been proposed by AJ
> > > > 2. it is too detailed (the micromanagment argument)
> > >
> > > I'd better complain then.
> > >
> > > 1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we should be
> > > striving to have fewer classes.
> >
> > Does it really? as pointed out earlier in threads about this we have 900+
> > non-DD maintainers. so it seems to me that this "class of Debian
> > participant" already exists. All the proposal does in that respect is make
> > the existing relation official.
>
> * how many are still active ?
> * how many are actually DD that never reuploaded thoses packages with
> their @d.o address ?
> * how many are actually DD that do not use their @d.o address ?
> * how many are not in NM ?
> * how many would be in NM if NM wasn't completely outrageously
> complicated and long ?
* how many are co-maintainers with a DD, or backed by a team where
there is at least a DD ?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
