On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:22 AM, viv...@gmail.com <viv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau: >>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him >>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming >>> that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not >>> a good idea. >> If none of the listed maintainers responds to a bug in 30 days in any way, >> the >> package is effectively unmaintained. >> > And thus its risky to mark it stable.
While I can see the logic here, I'd suggest that if we're going to refuse to stabilize because we don't think there is a maintainer, then we should mark the package as maintainer-needed while we're at it. Packages listed with maintainers who don't actually stabilize the package have several problems: 1. It diminishes the experience for stable users, which really should be the best experience we offer (and yes, I know that this is often not the case, hence the need to improve things). 2. The fact that a maintainer is already listed means that nobody else steps up to maintain it either. If a package is maintained, it should be stabilized (unless this is inappropriate due to the nature of the package itself, and that just requires asking for whitelisting). If a package isn't maintained, then it should be marked as such. Rich
