On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:42:28 +0200
Bernd Ernesti <veego@NetBSD.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:00:15AM +0200, Tobias Nygren wrote:
> [..]
> 
> > Now that there seems to be a consensus that it is a good idea
> > to formalise this, and that exclusive maintainership can be bad
> > for many noncritical/leaf packages because it results in
> > unnecessary e-mail overhead and delays, how about this scheme:
> 
> That maybe unnecessary e-mail in some eyes, but i others it may not
> because there maybe a reason why the maintainer didn't update the
> package.

Yes, it is clear that both views need to be properly supported.

> I'm against this way, it should be the other way around for the 'comment'.
> A maintainer has to explicit add a comment that they want become a 'weak'
> maintainer.

That is a technical issue and I'm fine with having it any way around.
It would require more packages to be changed and would mean that
the model gets slowly deployed, but that might be a good thing.

-T