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

Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal

Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes:

> On 11/10/12 at 05:50 +0000, Bart Martens wrote:
>>   |  Anyone can mark a package as orphaned after the following steps have been
>>   |  completed : Someone submits an "intent to orphan" (ITO) in the bts with an
>>   |  explanation of why he/she thinks that the package needs a new maintainer.  The
>>   |  explanation should cover aspects like how long there was no visible activity,
>>   |  whether there are NMUs not yet acknowledged, wheter the package blocks progress
>>   |  elsewhere in Debian, release critical bugs, public comments from the maintainer
>>   |  revealing lack of interest in the package, ... etc.  The bug must have severity
>>   |  "serious" and a cc must be sent to the debian-qa mailing list.  Anyone can
>>   |  submit this "intent to orphan".  At least three DDs (not counting the initial
>>   |  submitter) second the "intent to orphan" on the same bug report with a cc to
>>   |  the maintainer.  If some DDs send NACKs instead, then a 3/1 majority is needed
>>   |  between ACKers and NACKers.
>> And the maintainer does not respond within one month after the the third second.
> I'm not sure about this delay. This procedure should be used for
> uncontroversial cases, where orphaning is obviously the right choice.

I strongly agree here. A package that's a salvaging candidate has
already been neglected far too long, requiring another extra month of at
most NMU-maintainance is counter productive.

A maintainer has many ways to signal in advance that he/she will be
unable to answer bug reports or mail for a longer period of time
(including VAC messages on -private, and/or setting a vacation message
in LDAP), many of which can and should be checked as soon as the
salvaging process starts, to make sure there's no accidental overlap.

With that done, I do not see the point of waiting an extra month. I
would, however, put a time limit on the NACKs: one week after 3 ACKs or
3/1 majority is reached, the decision's done, and further ACKs/NACKs
won't be counted. That is, we'd have a time limit on everyones ability
to contribute to the salvaging process, not just a ticking clock for the

> Maybe rephrase that into "Before taking action, it could also be a good
> idea to wait for comments from the maintainer, especially if he/she is
> otherwise active in Debian."

I'd rephrase that further, with a s/wait for/seek/, because in my
opinion, the person wanting to salvage a package should go to great
lengths to reach the maintainer. Merely waiting when the package is
obviously neglected sounds like a very passive thing to me.


Reply to: