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

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

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Gergely Nagy <algernon@balabit.hu> wrote:
> >Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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.
> AIUI, with the current proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be
> orphaned, the maintainer's objection is irrelevant.

I would send a "NACK because the maintainer objects", and I trust other DDs
subscribed to debian-qa to do the same.  The ITO procedure is not meant to
replace the TC handling conflicts.


Bart Martens

Reply to: