Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#877024: Modemmanager probing of unknown Devices"):
> I wanted to make you aware of a status update.
> The maintainer who has been doing most of the uploads on modemmanager
> stepped down after receiving my query.Oh. > As a matter of process, it's not clear that there's an active maintainer > of modemmanager. Speaking as an individual, but not as a TC member (I > haven't talked to anyone else), I think it would be reasonable to treat > modemmanager as a package that is under-maintained at the moment in > which you've found a bug you care about, approaching things and > balancing the same as you might in any similar situation. Yes. I think that means in this case (since there is some controversy) explaining what I intend to do and seeing if anyone objects. Concretely, that means that I should be thinking about uploading the experimental upstream probing change branch to Debian experimental. > With more of a TC hat on, I am very reluctant to rule on this issue > without an active modemmanager maintainer. I don't think there is a > compelling need to do so, and I don't want to rule out the possibility > of a modemmanager maintainer coming along later and presenting an > argument about how we should balance this issue. > I don't think the lack of a ruling will be a blocking force at the > current time. I can see why the TC might want to avoid making a final ruling without proper input from the maintainers. But, should I upload to experimental, and later, to sid, as I have proposed ? It's not quite clear whose permission I need. To some people I have already overstepped the mark[1]. The dev ref says "Have you geared the NMU towards helping the maintainer?" and it all seems rather awkward to me to claim I am "helping the maintainer" when AFAICT the maintainers are quite unenthusiastic about these proposals. I would welcome a decision by the TC (or informal comments, for that matter) saying simply that they think it would be appropriate for me to do those uploads. Thanks, Ian. [1] Apparently referring the matter to the TC a mere 5 years after the maintainers rejected changing the behaviour is too hasty. I accept of course that the way I recently brought my renewed awareness of this problem to the attention of the maintainers wasn't ideal.
