Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure?
On May 8, 2025 20:25, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonas,
>
> Am Thu, May 08, 2025 at 11:22:44AM +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> > Quoting Andreas Tille (2025-05-08 10:26:08)
> > > Orphaning is something typically done by the maintainer themselves[1].
> > > If someone else does it unilaterally, wouldn't that come closer to a
> > > hijack? There's precedent for "Intent to orphan packages with
> > > unreachable maintainer address"[2]--but of course, that assumes attempts
> > > to contact the maintainer have failed.
> > >
> > > Would it feel more appropriate if I called it ITO (Intent to Orphan)
> > > instead of ITN and use the 21 days waiting period + upload to
> > > delayed=10?
> >
> > Yes, that helps tremendously.
>
> Great.
>
> > That makes is clear that we are talking about an aim of taking away
> > maintainership, where we can then sensibly discuss what are the costs
> > for the maintainer in complying or non-complying with the request, and
> > the costs for the project in having this procedure and not having it.
>
> I'm definitely interested in hearing what others think.
>
> My gut feeling is that such a process could come across as more
> aggressive toward the maintainer--but I'm open to discussing it and
> better understanding the trade-offs.
>
> > That avoids confusing arguments like "it has no cost to the maintainer"
> > or "we already have that procedure established", because it is clearly
> > something specific and different from both NMU, ITA and MIA.
>
> As I tried to express I'd happily take advise for a better name.
>
> > Thank you for clarifying. I have taken the liberty of renaming the
> > subject field, and hope we can move on with a more focused discussion
> > onwards,
>
> Makes perfectly sense. Thank you for doing so.
>
> See you
> Andreas.
>
> --
> https://fam-tille.de
How about a BoF on strong package ownership in Brest?
Thomas
Reply to: