| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 18:18 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran would have something to say about this, along the lines of some |
| 3 |
> packages sitting idle in ~arch state because the maintainer isn't |
| 4 |
> really paying attention. In that case, who can really blame an arch |
| 5 |
> team for moving ahead on their own? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Arch teams still have no reason to move ahead if they did not try to |
| 8 |
contact the maintainer(s). Sure, some packages may get 'lost' in large |
| 9 |
herds at times, but then the arches who do notice that particular pack |
| 10 |
have an extra responsibility to make the maintainer aware of it's state. |
| 11 |
Then if the maintainer still remains unresponsive there is sufficient |
| 12 |
reason for the arch to act on their own. |
| 13 |
In short, arches have to be able to strongly defend their actions if |
| 14 |
they are to interfere with the maintainers responsibilities. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
- foser |
Archives