Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> I certainly have no objection to people doing this, but I'm not sure
>>> that's really what we're discussing here. I think the thread is more
>>> about the ongoing issue that we seem to have in Debian where the
>>> existing procedure for orphaning packages is perceived as too
>>> heavy-weight and we believe that there are packages that aren't being
>>> cared for, aren't orphaned, and that someone else would work on if the
>>> status were clearer.
>> It is a proposed solution to the above issue, so it is intimately
>> apropos to the discussion at hand in my opinion.
> Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't
> think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which part do you believe
won't work in common cases? It's just applying existing NMU rules
with a little more liberalism to increase activity in under-maintained
packages, so I personally can't see where it would break down.
> certainly fine for people to try it, though, and I don't think it requires
> any changes to any procedures for people to do so.
A procedure change is important because it empowers salvagers; giving
them a clear set of steps to follow while also giving them the
confidence that their actions are the approved/correct ones; just like
the existing NMU rules. It also makes it clear who is in the right if
the issue does blow up to the Tech Committee.