Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages - only for obvious cases
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:52:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.
I agree that not every case will be obvious. When a package has clearly not
been maintained for several years, then it is easy to find three ACKs, so that
the package can be marked as orphaned. When the maintainer thinks that the
package is more or less fine and doesn't want to put the package up for
adoption, then the ITO procedure should not forcibly orphan the package.
The proposal written by Lucas is, in my opinion, sufficiently clear to address
only the obvious cases.
> 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".
It is, in my opinion, also useful to identify problems even without solving the