On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:53:55 -0500, Bill Nottingham <nott...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 2) It doesn't solve the problem of a non-responsive maintainer where the > requester *DOESN'T* want to take over the package. > > For example, just because I might have a an issue getting a needed change > into glibc doesn't mean I would want take over glibc. Of course, without a > willing maintainer to take over in this case, you're still stuck.
Yeah, I have seen similar cases where it seemed like people thought that somehow another maintainer would get assigned or that the current maintainer should be punished. I tried to point out, that just removing a current maintainer from a package doesn't actually help get things fixed. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
