Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages

[Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org>]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:36:15AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - there's some disagreement [...]

More disagreement than I expected.

> here is a new version of the last step of
> the proposed procedure:

> For completeness, here is the full proposal. I've also addressed a few
> cosmetic comments.

> Comments?

Thanks for your effort, Lucas.  I don't object against this new text.

However, I also had a look at the open wnpp bugs to get an idea of how packages
are currently being orphaned or put up for adoption in practice.  I started
from all open RFA, O and ITA bugs.  Then I excluded the wnpp bugs for which the
bug submitter is one of the package maintainers.  I also excluded the wnpp bugs
for packages already having Debian QA Group as the maintainer, mostly for
practical reasons, so my study is not complete on this part, but I guess that
there's little discussion about these packages.  Then I excluded the wnpp bugs
for packages for which the maintainer has MIA status inactive, unresponsive,
retiring, mia, needs-wat, retired or removed.  I have read all remaining wnpp
bugs.  I noticed that quite some packages are being orphaned and put up for
adoption without corresponding status in the MIA database.  Sounds alarming,
but in reality things go quite smooth.  The bug submitters seem to be very
reasonable.  At this point I see no problem with the currently open O, RFA and
ITA bugs.  I also realized that I can repeat this study automatically and
periodically, daily or so, to early detect suspicious new O, RFA and ITA bugs.
It is not much work to review the suspicious ones and whitelist the good ones.
The remaining ones can be cancelled or debated.  So maybe we could simply allow
anyone, including non-DDs, to submit O-bugs for packages which seem abandoned
by the maintainer, and to submit ITA-bugs for packages he/she wishes to
salvage.  Sounds revolutionary, but in reality this is more or less already
happening.  Thoughts ? Comments ? Am I overlooking something ?

Regards,

Bart Martens