[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages

Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:

>On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:32:25PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I don't object to ACKs, but the requirement to get a certain ACK/NACK
>ratio.  I see risk of this devolving into a popularity contest.  
>> I think it should either be unanimous or there is a dispute that the
>tech ctte needs to resolve.
>> Sune's proposal certainly seems simpler (and I see simplicity as a
>virtue), but modulo the voting issue, I think either would be fine.
>I do not think that the packages we are talking about here in this
>thread might frequently trigger some voting / popularity contest.  If
>really more than one NACK would be rised we most probably do not see
>such an salvage candidate as we actually have in mind here.  If more
>than two people would really NACK we probably have awaken some people
>who might start caring about the package again - so it might serve to
>salvage it by the original maintainers which is fine as well.
>I would suggest to apply the proposed rules because I do see more
>in getting no salvaging process at all because of endless discusion
>about this process and I would bear the risk that the rules will not
>work in some exceptional cases (as for all rules).

That could work either way.  If you're in such a rush to build consensus you could change 3/1 ACK/NACK ratio to without objection (objections  result in disputes resolved by the tech ctte) and have a +1 from me.

The problem is that once in place these rules are rather harder to change.  While you have in mind a certain set of packages this rule should be applied to, there's nothing preventing it from being applied in incorrect cases.

The popularity contest aspect of the current rule creates a risk that maintainers that make unpopular, but technically correct, choices will have their packages orphaned out from under them.

This is not what Debian is about and we should not institutionalize such a thing.  I'm firmly -1 as long as there a popular vote in this proposal.

Scott K

Reply to: