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

GR: Orphaning another maintainer's packages


while Lucas did his best to summarize the outcome from the last thread
in a fairly constructive and consensual way, it turned out that too many
people have too many opinions here on this matter.

Having clearly in mind, that seeking consensus by way of a General
Resolution for something ending up in Developer's Reference is like
breaking a fly on the wheel, I believe this is the only way out of this
impasse which yields to any working solution.

As it looks to me, I observe:

*) we have consensus that we are in need of such a rule set - which ever
it may be

*) we have three orthogonally different ideas:
   a) Bart's approach which was reformulated and proposed by Lucas in
this thread [1]
   b) Mine - which was based on timeout arithmetics [2]
   c) Michael Gilbert's approach to merge the concept of NMUs with
orphaning packages [3]

Among these, alternative a) seems to attract most responses and
opinions, most agreeing in spirit and procedures, but disagreeing about
one detail ...

*) ... within approach a) the most heat seems to deal with the necessity
to seek ACKs/NACKs for an intent to orphan of a package by peers. If we
would exclude the paragraph about DD seconding we are also roughly
there, what Sune proposed in [4] and - in spirit - seems to be most
attractive alternative to the original proposal.

Therefore, I consider seeking resolution by means of a GR proposing
Lucas alternative [with minor formulation tweaks and after discussion of
the actual text] (that is, proposal a).) without the DD seconding part,
because I do not like that much, personally.

Moreover, if we decided to go this way, I endorse anyone liking the DD
seconding to formulate an amendment adding this or another requirement
to the resolution statement.

What do you think? Does this sound like a fair compromise everyone could
live with?

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/10/msg00469.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/09/msg00654.html
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/10/msg00524.html
[4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/10/msg00473.html

with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: