Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages - maintainer's objection
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:40:26 Bart Martens wrote:
> > 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.
I recognise fundamental injustice here. If you expect ACKs then objections
should be allowed as well but there might be unlikely situation when salvaging
proceed after few ACKs without waiting for any further objections.
I fear of conflicts it may create.
Any form of agreement require fair amount of time for all parties to respond.
If the matter cannot wait one can use NMU during transition of package
ownership. This is in harmony with what Michael Gilbert proposed.
In clear case when waiting is impossible without hurting the package state,
DDs can take over without delays and take responsibility for future issues
with maintainer.
In any case we want salvaging to be documented in corresponding bug report.
Regards,
Dmitry.
Reply to: