[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:29:34AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:11:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :

> > *nothing* qualifies for a hijacking.

> your reaction seems to imply that hijacking is an implicit statement of
> failure.

There is no excuse for hijacking a package, ever.

If the maintainer is MIA, use the MIA process to get the package orphaned.

If the maintainer has not yet been shown to be MIA, do an NMU as needed.

If you're unhappy that the package has been unmaintained for a long time and
that the MIA process takes time to result in an orphaning... suck it up.  If
it was actually a problem, someone would have noticed it earlier and done
something about it.  An unmaintained package does not suddenly become an
urgent matter for the project the moment another DD notices it, and there is
*no* justification for bypassing our agreed-upon community processes for how
unmaintained packages are handled.

A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that they believe
they are not answerable to the project's processes for how package
maintenance is decided.  It is antisocial vigilanteism and it is not

As a sitting member of the Technical Committee, I encourage anyone who sees
a package being hijacked to immediately bring it to the attention of the TC.
I will without hesitation vote to have the hijacker barred from being made
the maintainer of the package.

> But this can be dis-ambiguated by thanking the maintainer for his past
> work,

Empty words,

> bringing the package in a team where everybody is welcome,

and a corrossive fallacy.  Teams work when there are shared processes and
tools.  By definition, you are proposing to give the current maintainer no
say in the processes or tools to be used.

> I think that it is important to have the flexibility to transfer a package
> for which the maintainer is not responding, in a neutral way that is not
> making any judgement on why he is not responding.

We already have this process, documented in section 7.4 of the Developers'
Reference.  What you are discussing here is *bypassing* that process.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: