Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:20:36AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 11/10/12 at 05:50 +0000, Bart Martens wrote:
> > 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 agree that in some cases orphaning is obviously the right choice and the
delay would be pointless. Maybe this can be solved by allowing unanimous
consensus on skipping the delay. Then the person interested in adopting the
package can proceed without the pointless entire month delay, so without the
risk of loosing interest. (Someone already brought up this aspect, as far as I
remember.)
>
> > During this process anyone is welcome to add
> > | comments on the bug.
>
> Maybe rephrase into:
> During the process, everyone is of course welcomed and encouraged to
> contribute to the discussion. Comments from users of the package that
> suffer from the level of maintenance are especially useful.
OK for me. I usually prefer the shorter text, but I won't object against the
larger text.
>
> > > - the proposal should include a list of criterias the the submitter could
> > > check to reinforce his initial email: the more "proofs" that the package is
> > > a good target, the better. The criterias from Arno's proposal look very
> > > good as a starting point.
> >
> > I have added some of them in the updated text above. I have skipped the part
> > about the MIA database because I want people without access to the MIA database
> > to be able to submit an "intent to orphan". The three DDs adding seconds can
> > still consult the MIA database.
>
> I like the fact that this process focuses on *packages* and not on
> *maintainers*. This makes thing a lot less confrontational.
I fully agree on that, and I have a quite strong opinion on this. Let's focus
on the package quality, and always be polite/friendly/respectful for the people
involved.
> So I'm fine
> with not including MIA in the checklist, since this typically focuses on
> the maintainer.
OK, I left it out for the practical reason I mentioned, but you're right about
the reason you gave.
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: