[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

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:01:51PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 09:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > 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 acceptable.

> Why are people talking about urgency and hijack? None applies to this
> package.

> Please refer to the title of this thread, where I wrote:
> Orphaning *THEN* take over

> Is there anything wrong with that?

Your original mail also said:

> So, if nobody objects within the next following 2 or 3 days, and if Jack
> doesn't show up and oppose to this procedure, we'll do that.

"2 or 3 days" *does* imply urgency, and this is the part of your original
proposal that I object to.  The rest of my objections are directed not at
you, but at those who are attempting to legitimize "hijacking" in this

> In fact, it's the total opposite way, I asked others if they found it ok to
> ask for the package to be orphaned after only a week, because I thought that
> 4 years without a refresh of the package, multiple NMUs of other packages
> from the same maintainer, was enough to shorten the "ping period". I also
> wrote about my intention to get the original maintainer in the team if he
> wishes so. Then considering Jonas opinion, I agreed to leave one week more,
> even if I know that the orphaning process may take some time as well.

> Is this hijack? Is this rushing?

I don't think it's a hijack.  I do think it's rushing.  I recognize that
there's a cost to having to set a mental alarm for tracking issues like
this, but if we haven't already made a determination that the maintainer is
MIA, then it takes some time to do this appropriately.  We shouldn't simply
assume that NMUs and unanswered low-priority bugs mean the package is up for
grabs - particularly as we *want* NMUs, we don't want maintainers to feel
they need to do no-changes reuploads just to confirm NMUs, and we don't want
maintainers to have their packages taken away from them as a result of them
doing the right thing wrt NMUs.

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:29:29AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 10:52 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > Please note that "badly maintained" is something quite different from
> > "not maintained". AFAICS, the package we are talking about is not
> > affected by severe or critical bugs. 

> That's a mater of views. #470294 should be made RC IMO.
> Or is writing to /usr not a good candidate for an RC bug?
> I thought this was a "serious violation of the policy". Am I wrong?

I think marking this 'serious' is appropriate, but given that it *wasn't*
marked 'serious' until today, this also does not justify an expedited
orphaning.  It's not reasonable to claim the maintainer was failing to act
on a RC bug when no one had bothered to inform the maintainer (who is not a
DD, and therefore may not have understood) that it was an RC bug.

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: