[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Unresponsive Maintianer: salimma

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 02:27:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > No, it doesn't qualify, since the maintainer is known to be active.
> It does. A maintainer can be active and still neglecting some packages.

Of course, this happens. But this is not covered by that policy.
> Still, there ought to be a better solution. Comaintainership?

There is no formal procedure in that case, with Rahul we proposed 
forced co-maintainership, but the policy was rejected by FESCo.
FESCo said that this would be revised when provenpackager is done.
I don't think anything changed with provenpackager, but, in any case,
since it has been implemented, FESCo could revisit it.

Still this is a controversial and touchy subject, the balance between 
bureaucracy and no handling of bugs is not an easy one. Actually the 
focus was only on bugs with a fix provided or discussed, not for 
every bugs, in our proposal:



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]