Re: GR: Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
> *) we have consensus that we are in need of such a rule set - which ever
> it may be
> *) we have three orthogonally different ideas:
> a) Bart's approach which was reformulated and proposed by Lucas in
> this thread 
> b) Mine - which was based on timeout arithmetics 
> c) Michael Gilbert's approach to merge the concept of NMUs with
> orphaning packages 
My proposal has nothing to say about orphaning itself, and explicitly
leaves it untouched. Mine can be considered a more flexible
co-maintainer process that importantly can be started far before
orphaning becomes a package's last resort. It also seeks to handle
the "hard" cases whereas a) and b) explicitly state that they're
avoiding that problem altogether.
Anyway, I and seemingly many others don't like the bureaucracy of a)
and b), especially since there is already a common-law 4*7*24*3600
rule in existence that would probably get applied more often if it
were actual devref-law.
Finally, if a) and b) aren't meant to do something about the original
issue, the "hard" maintainership questions, then what's the point?
Why do we need more bureaucracy when we already have a common-law