Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages - maintainer's objection
Bart Martens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Gergely Nagy <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> >> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard
>> >> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps
>> >> 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
>> >filing an ITO.
>> AIUI, with the current proposal, as long as three DDs think it should
>> orphaned, the maintainer's objection is irrelevant.
>I would send a "NACK because the maintainer objects", and I trust other
>subscribed to debian-qa to do the same. The ITO procedure is not meant
>replace the TC handling conflicts.
But as written, it does. It should be changed.