[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 11/10/12 at 10:21 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> 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
> maintainer.


> > 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.

OK. What is considered "sufficiently seeking for comments" can probably
be decided on a case-by-case basis (i.e., people should not ACK before
the waiting time is considered sufficient by them).


Reply to: