Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
I agree with Steve on this.