Marcus Denker wrote:
> According to the theory of code ownership, this means that Alejandro  is 
> the boss here. So I think the
> real problem is that Andreas just needs to be the Maintainer of a  
> dedicated "Chess" package, and everthing is fine.

I used this only as an example. I don't claim any ownership of that code 
precisely for the reasons I outlined.

> These packages were in the past not touched at all before a "full"  
> image is build. (With the notable exeption of
> Baloon3D, were we did not get a reaction of the maintainer and thus  
> added fix that cured us from
> upteen bug-reports, as the bug was triggerd by everyone just  exploring 
> the image...)

Now that example actually underlines my position: In cases like this, 
where there's a real bug and real time pressure, yes action needs to be 
taken to correct it. Did you notice that I never said the slightest 
thing against it? Even though I decided later to fix the problem in a 
very different way. But that was necessary.

Cheers,
   - Andreas