> Is my point clear now (even if is may disagree with my reasoning)?
I find your point quite clear, but suspect you misunderstood those
claiming the sponsor have responsibilities regarding package
To me it is obvious that the sponsor is also responsible for a
package, when the maintainer become unresponsive or missing. When the
maintainer is active and available, the sponsor do not have to step in
and the responsibility is "sleeping".
The maintainer is responsible in the day to day maintenance, but when
I sponsor packages I also keep in mind that I might end up having to
care about the package some time in the future if the listed
maintainer looses interest or disappears for other reasons.
You seem to argue that this should not be the case. Is this because
of your current sponsor practice, or is there some other experience
behind your view on the responsibilities of a package sponsor in
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com