On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > 4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by > > retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly. > I fear a bit the situation "nobody care enough to comment", being > interpreted as lack of consensus. But I do think in that case we should > _eventually_ allow the orphaning to happen (after all 1/0 > 3/1 ACK/NACK > </joke>). > Any suggestion on how to word that properly, without adding yet another > timeout rule carved in stone? I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you should go ahead with the orphaning, then the system is not working as designed and consensus has not been achieved. It's then incumbent on the person looking to orphan the package to rattle the cage and get developers to pay attention. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature