Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On 24/10/12 at 08:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.
I am quite sure that we will find many DDs (me included) willing to NACK
all proposals of "stealing" packages from technically-correct, active,
but unpopular maintainers. And you can even drop "technically-correct"
from my sentence. The goal of this proposal is not to substitute for the
Really, I don't see how a cabal could abuse this recommended procedure without
enough people to stop it noticing.