On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:59:09PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > 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 > >>></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 > >>attention. > >I agree with Steve on this. > >Regards, > >Bart Martens > 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... And I don't think this is a realistic scenario. Why can't you find N other DDs who agree with you that the package should be taken over? This is not a high bar. I don't really have any sympathy for the argument that the entire Debian project might decide not to care about the package you're concerned about and therefore you need to take matters into your own hands and take it over. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature