On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago, > willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmaintained > package (since then, all other packages of this maintainer > have been orphaned...). It (unwillingly) created a huge thread > about when and when not taking over a maintainer, with some > of the thread participant having no clue what so ever if the old > maintainer was still alive or not. Do you also remember WHY it created a huge thread? It created a huge thread BECAUSE YOU HAD PROPOSED TO TREAT SILENCE AS ASSENT. Silence is not assent. That thread blew up because you proposed a *broken* process for trying to orphan a package that didn't require you to establish a consensus, which is the exact same thing you are now arguing. Establishing consensus about whether a package should be orphaned isn't hard, if you're following the right process in the first place! > All this for what? Avoiding that someone hijacks a package? > Does this happen often? If yes, please point to the relevant > recent cases, because I must have missed them. I'd be also > glad to read what kind of consequences we are facing with > more relaxed rules. > The rules are already too tight for no reason now, so of course > I don't think adding even more paper work for taking over > someone who's anyway MIA would be a good thing. Fine, if getting a consensus is too much work for you, feel free to refer all maintainer change requests directly to the Technical Committee instead. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature