Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 01:58:15 +0300
- From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:36:04PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy.
> > This would not be "a purely informative change".
> > Your suggested wording has the potential to create a HUGE amount of tensions.
> You're right. After sending my patch I realised that it contains the
> word "should", which is a magic word in policy, imposing a normative
> requirement. This was not intended.
> My intended meaning: it is already best practice that *other team
> members* should orphan a package if they know that no-one in the team is
> actively taking care of it *according to their judgement of 'actively'*.
> Would you agree that this is already established best practice?
That completely misses the problem.
If the team has remaining members, and one of these members knows that
no-one in the team is actively taking care of a package, then what
happens afterwards is obvious.
Finding unmaintained packages is the hard part.
In a bigger team maintaining 500 packages it is a non-trivial amount of
extra work searching for packages no-one inside the team is actively
taking care of.
In a small team with 2 members maintaining 1 package, what you write
obviously cannot work when the last team member becomes MIA.
With Uploaders you are able to see when all uploaders are retired/MIA,
either inside the team or from outside when the team has no active
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed