From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JhJ9x-0004G4-Jc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:42:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D38B9E08EA; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 06:42:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amun.cheops.ods.org (amun.cheops.ods.org [82.95.138.191]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD20E08EA for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 06:42:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tefnut.cheops.ods.org ([2001:888:1022:0:211:24ff:fe37:e46e] helo=gentoo.org) by amun.cheops.ods.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JhJ9u-00017I-8N for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:42:51 +0200 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:42:44 +0200 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April Message-ID: <20080403064244.GH831@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20080401092610.EEF7467349@smtp.gentoo.org> <47F3F098.1050508@gentoo.org> <47F3F860.6080200@gentoo.org> <47F3FA1C.7010407@gentoo.org> <47F3FC53.2070500@gentoo.org> <47F43115.8060907@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47F43115.8060907@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (Darwin 8.11.0, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.1) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. X-Content-Scanned: by amun.cheops.ods.org (Exim Exiscan) using SpamAssassin and ClamAV X-Archives-Salt: 0f0185a4-a822-4a7d-9b2f-697d190f81ff X-Archives-Hash: e1025ce95d52d6bb88aabc2167db74e6 On 02-04-2008 21:21:25 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: > Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain > packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the > maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs? Devs who keep claiming > packages only to allow them to bitrot can be booted. On other projects I sometimes see a remark such as: "Maintainer time-out, committing the fix as in bug #bla" Maybe that is a bit less intrusive as dropping the maintainer entirely. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list