Closes: #567234
* Small typo fixes and clarifications/rewordings suggested by Karl Goetz.
Closes: #567233
+ * Document the notion of "team upload": it looks like an NMU but it's not
+ really one because the uploader is an implicit co-maintainer since he's
+ part of the maintenance team. Thanks to Charles Plessy for the initial
+ patch. Closes: #573110
-- Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:49:40 +0900
</section>
+<section id="nmu-team-upload">
+<title>NMUs vs team uploads</title>
+
+<para>
+Sometimes you are fixing and/or updating a package because you are member of a
+packaging team (which uses a mailing list as Maintainer or Uploader, see <xref
+linkend="collaborative-maint"/>) but you don't want to add yourself to Uploaders
+because you do not plan to contribute regularly to this specific package. If it
+conforms with your team's policy, you can perform a normal upload without
+being listed directly as Maintainer or Uploader. In that case, you should
+start your changelog entry with the following line: <code> * Team upload.</code>.
+</para>
+
+</section>
+
</section>
<section id="collaborative-maint">
</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
+
<para>
In any case, it is a bad idea to automatically put all team members in the
-Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
+Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
<xref linkend="ddpo"/> ) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
-a false sense of good maintenance.
+a false sense of good maintenance. For the same reason, team members do
+not need to add themselves to the Uploaders field just because they are
+uploading the package once, they can do a “Team upload” (see <xref
+linkend="nmu-team-upload"/>). Conversely, it it a bad idea to keep a
+package with only the mailing list address as a Maintainer and no
+Uploaders.
</para>
</section>