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

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

Hash: SHA1

> I think four weeks would be much better.  A maintainer might
> reasonably go abroad for 2-3 weeks - we even have a VAC process for
> handling absences.  (And we don't want to complicate this third-party
> orphan process with references to VACs.)

Remember that we do not really have a VAC process for the ~50% of 
maintainers who are not DDs [1]. That group of maintainers have no real way 
of letting the rest of the project know that they are on VAC [2]. They also 
have an interest in and a proven ability to maintain packages and so may 
like to help out with other unmaintained packages ... after all, we they are 
encouraged time and time again to adopt packages rather than introduce new 
ones into the archive. But they cannot know if the maintainer is on VAC or 
not to engage in this process.

I'm not suggesting that VAC status should be public information, but blanket 
statements that we know if maintainers are on VAC (or MIA or whatever) are 
wrong for 50% of our maintainers as are statements that potential salvagers 
have this information.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/jr6344$lkp$1@dough.gmane.org

[2] I would encourage them to let their sponsors know this since the 
sponsors are in the position of helping care for their packages anyway

- -- 
Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint    BE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8

Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: