Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
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?
It created a huge thread BECAUSE YOU HAD PROPOSED TO TREAT SILENCE AS
What? Could you explain what I did? Silence from who? The old maintainer?
Other DDs reading the list?
That thread blew up because you proposed a *broken*
process for trying to orphan a package that didn't require you to establish
Call me stupid, but I don't get it again. Are you saying that I should have
silently taken over maintainership of the package (eg: hijacking it)?
I didn't propose any process, I asked the crowd for anyone to eventually
infirm my view that the maintainer was MIA. It blew up because people
thought I was changing the process, which I was *not*.
Fine, if getting a consensus is too much work for you, feel free to
refer all maintainer change requests directly to the Technical
I didn't write it was "too much work for [me]" ...
This type of sentence, is making a caricature of what I wrote and emptying
all my words from any kind of sense. This is *not* going to help in any