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 thread. > 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