Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:51:12PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
> > "adoption" will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
> > package as its new maintainer. The term "salvage", in my opinion, we
> > can define as a process for becoming a co-maintainer on a package with
> > a long-term possibility of becoming its maintainer.
> This is an unhelpful redefinition of the term. The term "salvage" was
> introduced to *mean* orphaning/adopting a package when the maintainer is no
> longer fulfilling their responsibilities.
I agree with Steve on this. Let's not redefine the term now, since it would
introduce more confusion, and it would not bring us closer to a consensus on
The proposal is about an "intent to orphan", which is in obvious cases easy to
find a consensus on. The real salvaging (the hard work) happens via the
existing ITA procedure.