Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On 10/24/2012 11:55 AM, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
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
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.
So, what will you do if:
- previous maintainer goes MIA
- Somebody wants to hija^W salvage the package and starts the procedure
- Nobody votes for this to happen...
Should we then leave the package forever unmaintained?
I don't think this is reasonable...