> > Bureaucracy is often designed to do lots of things "better" and it often > > doesn't achieve them. It creates needless hassle, more 'paperwork', and > > has very few benefits besides making people feel like they've done > > something useful when they haven't. > > > You are saying that requiring people to find co-maintainers is > "bureaucracy"? Someone I know well recently got co-maintainers for > three of his packages by posting a single message to debian-devel.
I think that what Erinn wants to say is more that *forcing* (or putting pressure on) maintainers to find co-maintainers would be "bureaucracy". I think that she will however agree that *encouraging* co-maintenance for "key" or "important" packages (which is a very vague definition) is one of the ways to go. But she will probably be able to say it by herself: I'm just interpreting.... The word "bureaucracy" here has of course a negative meaning for "constraints that are felt unneeded"....which I mostly agree with. I sometimes defend the idea that bureaucracy may be needed but I'm not sure it's needed here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
