[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


On 11.10.2012 07:50, Bart Martens wrote:
>> - the submitter of the "intent to orphan" bug must Cc 
>>   debian-qa@lists.debian.org, and file the bug with severity:serious (this 
>>   was part of the "criterias" proposal).
>   |  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.  

I don't think "intend to orphan" (ITO) is a good name. First of all, it
is wrong, because if you file such a bug, you eventually don't want to
orphan a package, but quite the contrary revive its maintenance.
Moreover, its name suggests it would be a WNPP bug, which it isn't and
wouldn't be.

Aside I welcome Lucas and your initiative to move on with this
discussion. After all, I'm happy with any solution which finds
consensus, but I still don't like the DD seconding for the reasons
outlined before. At very least we could allow DMs to make votes too.
Eventually it's just some key in a keyring which is required to
authenticate people.

Some additional thoughts on the seconding:

*  can we really be sure that random developers flying by, care enough
to look into a package they may not care about, inspect its situation
and ack/nack? The whole new mechanism could be bypassed by feedback
timeout. Frankly, many packages which could be salvaged in future are
not on of these which draw much attraction.

* You cannot require a 3:1 majority without giving a time window to
raise objections. The way Bart proposed it in his draft, one couldn't
make sure a 3:1 majority is reached before 75% of *all* developers
agreed for the opened case. I don't think that's desired or realistic.

* How would you validate binding votes on a salvage process? You would
need to require to send signed mails to the list for seconding.
Otherwise we did not win anything over votes allowed by anyone.

with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: