Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On 2012-10-23, Stefano Zacchiroli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Otherwise stated, the proposal is *exactly* what you're proposing, plus
> some consensus-based best practice to deal with the missing "else"
> branch of your point (3).
seriously. if it is exactly what I'm proposing, then why does it have to
be written up in so many sentences that people gives up on reading it?
If there is objections (especially from current-maintainer) to the
takeover attempt, we already have procedures in place (hi, tech-ctte) to
deal with that. Why create a second framework to be used under some
conditions? Again. simplicity.