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

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

Andreas Tille writes ("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:
>   [ examples of things which might be wrong ]

The problem is that all of these things are subjective.  The person
doing the ITO may think one thing; the maintainer a different thing.
The rules we are now writing need to be based on objective criteria.
Since there is nothing in the process that actually demands any
particular level of lack of maintenance, the criteria need to be based
on something else - in this case, proper agreement or at least lack of
active objection.

> 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.

That would satisfy me.

It is also then reasonable for the process to allow (but not require)
this upload to DELAYED/15 to even be a takeover with all the work and
reorganisation that the intending new maintainer thinks is
appropriate.  The risk of course is that the old maintainer rejects
the upload and the work is wasted - and no doubt some bad feeling.
Whether to take that risk is a decision for the prospective new


Reply to: