Comment 19 for bug 1394731

I am not asking for this MIR to be rejected, nor am I asking that the desktop team monitor the bug mail. What I am looking for is clarity about who is ultimately responsible for addressing any problems with this package with respect to the main inclusion requirements - including any MIRs that might be required for further future dependencies. This was the intent from my side when we had the discussion that led to listing this as a requirement on the wiki page; I'm sorry if that intent didn't come through clearly.

Logically, I don't think it makes sense for the development team for a universe flavor to be ultimately responsible for a package with respect to main. Would you agree?

FWIW the context for why I care about this is basically <http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/m-r-package-team-mapping.html>. It's important to have an escalation path for bugs on packages in main, and I believe it's a bug to have "unowned" packages in main. (I think it's also a bug that lubuntu and xubuntu are considered "owners" on that page, since like ubuntu-gnome they are universe flavors; but note that they each only have one package subscription listed, for a package that is co-owned by the desktop team.)

Anyway, this isn't a problem that's specific to this MIR bug, so I'm happy to take the general discussion to email with the MIR team. Would the desktop team be happy marking ~desktop-packages as a subscriber for grilo and grilo-plugins?

> On another note, it will be great that every archive admin members
> follow the same procedure when promoting a package to main. The
> bug is still opened and not fixed release, I was not even aware then
> that it's been promoted already. I don't think I handle that promotion
> on the 04 of march, which is quite recent (my logs and command
> doesn't show this). Sad that we don't have in the UI launchpad logs
> showing who originated the request.

Yes, agreed on all points. It's clearly incorrect to promote a package to main without updating the bug, and it's very unfortunate that we don't have audit logs to show who promoted the package. I will address this with the archive admin team.