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

[Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>]

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
>and
>> >> fast objective thing.  It's to a large part subjective.  Perhaps
>the
>> >> 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
>comes
>> >to
>> >filing an ITO.
>> 
>> AIUI, with the current proposal, as long as three DDs think it should
>be
>> orphaned, the maintainer's objection is irrelevant.
>
>I would send a "NACK because the maintainer objects", and I trust other
>DDs
>subscribed to debian-qa to do the same.  The ITO procedure is not meant
>to
>replace the TC handling conflicts.

But as written, it does.   It should be changed.

Scott K