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

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

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
> willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmaintained
> package (since then, all other packages of this maintainer
> have been orphaned...). It (unwillingly) created a huge thread
> about when and when not taking over a maintainer, with some
> of the thread participant having no clue what so ever if the old
> maintainer was still alive or not.

Do you also remember WHY it created a huge thread?


Silence is not assent.  That thread blew up because you proposed a *broken*
process for trying to orphan a package that didn't require you to establish
a consensus, which is the exact same thing you are now arguing.
Establishing consensus about whether a package should be orphaned isn't
hard, if you're following the right process in the first place!

> All this for what? Avoiding that someone hijacks a package?
> Does this happen often? If yes, please point to the relevant
> recent cases, because I must have missed them. I'd be also
> glad to read what kind of consequences we are facing with
> more relaxed rules.

> The rules are already too tight for no reason now, so of course
> I don't think adding even more paper work for taking over
> someone who's anyway MIA would be a good thing.

Fine, if getting a consensus is too much work for you, feel free to refer
all maintainer change requests directly to the Technical Committee instead.

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

Reply to: