Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On 23/10/12 at 17:19 +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-10-23, Lucas Nussbaum <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Here is an attempt at summarizing & building a proposal out of the
> > "Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal"
> > thread that was started at .
> Some years ago, people used a much simpler process. Why complicate
> 1) report a bug 'should this package be orphaned?' against the package
> with a more or less defalut templated text and a serious severity
> 2) sleep 4*7*24*3600
> 3) if bug silent, orphan it (and maybe adopt it)
Funnily, I was the one that initiated that process (see thread at ).
I used that process for quite a few packages (but not recently). However
I see two problems with it:
- it requires quite a lot of self-confidence. I find third-party reviews
and ACKs a good way to reinforce the feeling that the orphaning is the
right thing to do. Note that it's often users who detect unmaintained
software. With the ACK-based process, it's possible for a user to
initiate the process. I fear that, if we go for a process without
third-party reviews, people (esp. users who are not DDs) will lack the
confidence needed to initiate the process.
- it takes a long time. For simple & obvious cases, waiting for a month
is a bit annoying when someone is willing and ready to take over
maintenance. it's important to use contributors motivation while it's
But anyway, I would not oppose adding something such as:
If you followed all the steps above, waited for a month, did not
receive enough ACKs, but nobody NACKed, you can still proceed.
However, so far, it seems that the discussion is split between people
that think "it would work", and people that think "it would not work".
Maybe we could try for a few months, and if it does not work, fix it?