Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages - without objection versus requiring ACKs
Bart Martens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:06:34AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it
>The "without objection" approach would require a reasonable delay for
>raise objections (some say two months). The ACK/NACK approach allows
>a consensus in a shorter time, so that for obvious cases the salvaging
>proceed without pointless delay.
No. Changing 3:1 ACK/NACK to 3 (or some other number) ACKS and no objections imposes no such constraint.