Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
>> 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...
>
> And I don't think this is a realistic scenario. Why can't you find N other
> DDs who agree with you that the package should be taken over? This is not a
> high bar. I don't really have any sympathy for the argument that the entire
> Debian project might decide not to care about the package you're concerned
> about and therefore you need to take matters into your own hands and take it
> over.
Not a high bar, but still far more work than it needs to be. Salvaging
is meant for cases where it is desperately needed, which, I believe, are
quite clear cases. I find it unreasonable to demand ACKs, when one
already went to great lengths to solve the issue without taking over
maintainership.
If there's dispute later, any change can be reverted then, or taken to
the tech-ctte. I do not see any reason to make the process long and
tedious, we should *NOT* punish the salvager for trying to bring a
package back to life. We should make that as easy and painless as
possible, once other options failed.
Would a mistake happen, it can and should be corrected, but that should
be the exception, not the norm. And as such, the process should not
follow the exceptional cases, but the most common ones.
So while I do agree that ACKs/NACKs can be helpful, making them
mandatory would - I believe - be counter productive. If noone cared
enough to respond with neither ACK nor NACK, go ahead. Not voting means
one does not care. It is entirely possible that the vast majority of the
project won't care about a particular package, and that should not be an
obstacle on the path of salvaging it.
--
|8]
Reply to: