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

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages"):
> I think orphaned packages are one of our best opportunities to attract new
> developers, rather than serving as an additional obligation for existing
> developers.  [etc.]

Thanks for that excellent analysis.  You have convinced me that the
salvaging process should countenance orphaning packages, as well as
(or perhaps instead of) allowing a different maintainer to take them
over.

I still think that the right standard is "no objection" rather than
collecting some explicit number of acks.  In particular I don't think
any number of acks ought to override a nack from the existing
maintainer.

And if we're allowing any single nack to stop it, then I don't see
what requiring ack(s) buys us.  It would force the salvager to make
explicit their criticisms of the package and hence the maintainer.

Ian.