Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> 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
>> 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
On the other hand, it is already hard to find people willing to review
other peoples work. Mandating acks means trusting that there will be
enough manpower to review something potentially unknown. I can't see
that happening reliably. It also makes the process a whole lot more
complicated than it needs to be, which in turn allows the package to
suffer unmaintainance longer, decreasing the distributions overall
As said elsewhere in the thread, the process needs to be easy and
efficient. Hunting ACKs is neither easy, nor efficient.