Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages - maintainer's objection
On Friday, October 26, 2012 01:40:26 PM Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> > Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > >> Gergely Nagy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: 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.
> > So why not agree now that the maintainer can veto the process?
> Because this would raise the question "how long should we wait for the
> maintainer to object or to remain silent". In obvious cases, for example
> when the package has clearly not been maintained for years, then three ACKs
> from DDs should be sufficient to orphan the package, so that the package
> can be salvaged quickly, without pointless delay. In less obvious cases,
> for example when the maintainer objects, I trust the DDs to send NACKs to
> the ITO, so that the package is not orphaned forcibly.
It seems like an obvious bug in the proposal that I don't understand the
resistance to fixing. Rather than trust is won't be a problem, why not fix the
bug and change it to if there are NACKs, it's a dispute for the tech ctte?