Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:30:20PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Consider the case where a maintainer objects. In that case you're
> counting in the previous "long waiting" time a period which the
> orphaner probably thinks shows disinterest in the package, but during
> which the maintainer may well feel (for part of the time at least)
> that the package simply didn't need any attention.
I keep on thinking that we are talking about different packages. If a
maintainer is "simply feels that the packages didn't need any attention"
these are not packages which are for instance:
- lagging *way* behind upstream (regarding time or version number)
- leaving open bugs simply unanswered (=do not give any reasons
for not working on a bug)
I do not speak about feelings but measurable facts.
> So I don't think
> counting time-since-last-touched towards the notification period (even
> in the moral sense you're now doing) is reasonable.
I should be more precise: It is not time-since-last-touched but rather
time-with-reported-problem-but-no-reaction. I definitely expect a
maintainer to at least respons to a bug report somehow like "I'm willing
to do something in time X but do not have time now bla bla". If you
find several bugs on a package with no response (assuming reasonable
reports which for instance also might affect a potential orphaner) I
would perfectly include the time-since-last-issue-without-any-reaction
into the waiting time and this is the time X I was talking about (and I
always lived under the impression that we are talking about packages of
> Also this argument is a form of "this has been waiting for ages so now
> it is urgent" which I don't really agree with (unless there's an
> actual deadline of course).
I would rather call it a "this has been waiting for ages so you are
obviosely not interested and no harm is done if I take action nowish".
> Unless we're having some heavyweight process with multiple pings
> etc. (which we IMO shouldn't) the way the maintainer might first
> discover that someone feels the package needs to be orphaned is by the
> ITO bug. The maintainer needs to have a good chance to object.
Why should a maintainer who ignored several other bugs should be
astonished about such kind of a bug?
OK, if you want a chance for objection: Lets add to the procedure an
upload to DELAYED/15 which gives another two weeks time to react. I
definitely think that somebody who really is in the mood of salvaging
a package and has some momentum should not be delayed a longer time
than two weeks to start with some action.
> > We are not talking about stealing packages right at the first day
> > of a maintainers VAC, right?
> That's not the intent, of course. But if we invent a new process with
> objective criteria, it needs to be robust against malicious
> interpretation (or indeed careless action which follows the letter of
> the rules).
I did not followed all the mails of this thread but I never had the
impression that the drivers of a simple package salvaging process seemed
to some extend careless. I respect my fellow maintainers high enough to
simply assume that they do not do careless action and will deal with the
rules sensible enough that no extra hurdles are needed.