Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > >>I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
> > >>willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmaintained
> > >>package (since then, all other packages of this maintainer
> > >>have been orphaned...). It (unwillingly) created a huge thread
> > >>about when and when not taking over a maintainer, with some
> > >>of the thread participant having no clue what so ever if the old
> > >>maintainer was still alive or not.
> > >Do you also remember WHY it created a huge thread?
> > >It created a huge thread BECAUSE YOU HAD PROPOSED TO TREAT SILENCE AS
> > >ASSENT.
This claim seems to be false.
> > What? Could you explain what I did? Silence from who? The old maintainer?
> > Other DDs reading the list?
> "So, if nobody objects within the next following 2 or 3 days, and if Jack
> doesn't show up and oppose to this procedure, we'll do that."
> That's equating silence with assent.
> Perhaps that wasn't what you intended, but that is what you said, and that
> was a factor in the resulting blow-up.
The mail also talked about "we" and "us (eg: the PKG-PHP Pear team)".
That implies he already had the support of someone else, and they could
have sent ACKs if needed (but there was no need to, as he wanted to know
whether anyone opposed; the number of "me too"s didn't matter). None of
the mails starting the discussion questioned whether the number of
people in favor was sufficient.