On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:09:18 PM Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 04:18:26AM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > - There does need to be a mandatory minimum waiting period. This > > > process > > > > > > is going to be seen as "blessed" via the devref; we should not be > > > blessing a process with an obvious bug that permits abuse by a DD and > > > three of her friends pulling off a hostile takeover of a package > > > before > > > anybody has a chance to say no. Even though such an act *can* be > > > appealed to the TC, we shouldn't put ourselves in the situation that > > > it > > > has to be. > > > > I won't object to adding a mandatory minimum waiting period, although in > > some obvious cases it will lead to a pointless delay. > > What cases do you consider obvious? For me, the only obvious cases are the > ones where the MIA team has declared the maintainer no longer active and > orphaned all of their packages, in which case this entire process is > redundant. In all other cases, I think the maintainer should have a > reasonable opportunity to respond. If the maintainer never responds, then (it turns out) there was no need for the delay. So there are cases where delay is pointless, the problem is that you can't tell in advance if you're in one of those cases or not. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.