Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal
On 11/10/12 at 11:27 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 11.10.2012 07:50, Bart Martens wrote:
> >> - the submitter of the "intent to orphan" bug must Cc
> >> email@example.com, 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.
Any ideas of better names?
> * 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.
In the process, most of the burden is put on the one requesting the
orphaning. That person has to build a sufficiently strong case that the
package should be orphaned. I don't expect random DDs to deeply
investigate the package themselves, but rather to check the facts put
forward by the requester and then ACK/NACK. That task is sufficiently
lightweight that I think finding 3 DDs will be easy. Plus, the smell of
blood is likely to attract DDs to look into those cases ;)
> * 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.
Correct, but addressed by Gergely's proposal in
<firstname.lastname@example.org>, I think.
> * 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.
Yes, votes must be signed, and it's the responsibility of the
requester to check the signatures.