[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:36:15AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> ----------------------------------->8
> 4. When/if consensus has been reached, or if no objections have been raised,
>    the package can be orphaned by retitling and reassigning the ITO bug
>    accordingly. Here are some example situations where it is considered
>    acceptable to move forward:
>     - one month has passed since the ITO bug was submitted, and nobody
>       objected to the orphaning;
>     - one week has passed since the ITO bug was submitted, and at least
>       3 DDs supported the orphaning (possibly including the submitter
>       of the ITO bug, if it was a DD), while nobody objected.
> ----------------------------------->8
> For completeness, here is the full proposal. I've also addressed a few
> cosmetic comments.

Hi Lucas, thanks a lot for this updated draft. I think is good and I'm
generally supportive of it.

A remaining concern of mine, however, is the second case. One week
really seems too short.

I understand that 3 DDs supporting the orphaning should give a good
safeguard against hostile takeovers. But I don't see the need for such a
short timeframe: if there's urgency, the interested DDs can use NMUs.
And on the other hand I do feel the risk of maintainers coming back from
VAC and finding packages where they've invested a lot of efforts
orphaned, maybe because a group of DDs working closely together ended up
sharing a (wrong) view on the maintainer intentions. That has a very
negative social potential and I think we should try hard to avoid it.

I propose to go for 15 days before proceeding in presence of ACKs.

It matches the longest DELAYED/XX period we currently have. For that
reason it seems to be culturally associated with a "long" delay we give
to people to react.

Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: