Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages - no ACKs nor NACKs, timeout, defaulting to no
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:48:18AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> why would it hurt
> to bake in a worst-case scenario with no acks or nacks? (I can accept
> defaulting to no too, after a timeout, as long as there's one. I would
> find the result pointless and silly, but at least it puts an end to it,
> which the current proposal doesn't.)
I would not object against including this in the text.