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

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

Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org> wrote:

>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
>> >> 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
>> >to
>> >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.

Scott K

Reply to: