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

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

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:15:48 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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
> technical committee.
> Really, I don't see how a cabal could abuse this recommended procedure
> without enough people to stop it noticing.

It may not be the goal of this proposal to substitute for the technical 
committee, but, in part, it would.  If there is a 3:1 dispute over if a 
package should be orphaned, this process would take that dispute out of the 
hands of the technical committee because the voting ratio was adequate.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea of a popularity contest over the 
adequacy of package maintenance.  In practice, I think people will very rarely 
object when packages are clearly not maintained, so the practical difference 
between 3:1 ratio and without objection or go to the technical committee is 
not much.  Where I believe it will make a difference is in preventing 
misapplication of this process, particularly trying to resolve social issues 
through a process that is supposed to be technical.

Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it works?  If it 
doesn't work, the consequence would be most work for the technical committee.  
If they complain/can't keep up, then we could look into a voting alternative.

Scott K

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: