Hi, thanks for the proposal. It looks good, generally speaking and being in consent with the previous discussion we had. Some minor tweaks: On 23.10.2012 11:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 1. Someone opens an ITO (Intent to Orphan) bug against the package whose > orphaning is suggested, with the 'serious' severity. ... The MIA team > should also be notified (by Ccing mia@qa.debian.org) if the situation > affects several packages. Given the procedure is about packages and not people as you pointed out, Ricardo, on behalf of the MIA team commented [1] that it is pointless to involve them in such cases. > 2. The submitter should seek comments from the package maintainer > (e.g., by sending a private mail notifying him/her of the process). That's why I initially suggested to file a bug against the package and not wnpp. Hence I believe this is redundant. > 3. Debian Developers can then ACK or NACK the proposed orphaning (using > signed mails sent to the bug and to debian-qa@lists.debian.org). The procedure includes a bug filed against the package, but replies should be sent to debian-qa? > retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly. It is recommended to > wait for at least a 3/1 majority between ACKers and NACKers (and to give > a couple of days for potential NACKers to speak up). Gregely suggested a fixed timeout for NACKs, a voting period [2]. I believe this is a good idea for both, positive and negative votes on a submitted case. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/09/msg00656.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/10/msg00162.html -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature