Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
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
> >>>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...
Steve explained that, see above.