Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
> maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
> priority that the problems are tolerable.
Then the maintainer has many options, including but not limited to
NACK-ing the ITO. One has a lot of possibilities even before it comes to
filing an ITO.
> It's one thing to say "this package is in need of attention which I am
> prepared to commit to providing". It's quite another to say "this
> package is in need of attention but I'm not going to do anything other
> than say it's a problem".
There is, indeed a difference, but the latter allows someone else
(potentially a non-DD) to take over the package, and make it visible
that the package is in need of a new maintainer. That alone is already a
tremendous improvement compared to papering over the issue.