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

Re: ITS process as a means to orphan packages



Quoting Tobias Frost (2025-12-07 13:00:08)
> (From #1118722)
> > Initially I intended to find some additional Uploader inside the
> > Salvage team to help you maintaining the package.  Since this was
> > not the case I think it is the best solution to rather move the
> > package to the Debian/ team and set Debian QA Group as maintainer
> > (= orphaning the package).
> > You are kindly invited to revert this and put your own ID as
> > Maintainer again if you intend to keep on maintaining this package.
> > Please let me know and I will grant you permissions on this
> > repository.  I can also stop the upload for the next 15 days.
> > 
> > Kind regards and thank you for your work on this package
> >     Andreas.
> 
> I believe this use of the ITS process is problematic. We’ve discussed
> this before, so I know you are aware of the concerns [1]. In our last
> exchange you indicated that you would follow the ITS procedure as
> intended.
> 
> [1] #1094788, with further discussion in private mail.
> 
> I’m bringing this to debian-devel for broader input - both to verify
> whether my understanding is correct and to see whether others consider
> using the ITS process in this way (effectively as a route to orphan
> packages) appropriate.
> 
> The ITS process was carefully designed [2]. While it’s not immutable
> and can certainly be updated or improved, changes should follow prior
> discussion and consensus. It was, however, explicitly not intended to
> be used for orphaning packages.
> 
> There was some discussion about creating an Intend To Orphan (ITO)
> procedure, but (i may have missed it) did not reach a conclusion.
> Maybe this discussion should be restarted?
> 
> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00453.html

I agree that the ITS procedure is about taking over responsibility of a
package, not taking away responsibility of a package: A package is not
salvaged by moving it from a DD as maintainer to QA as
pseudo-maintainer - not even if said DD is unresponsive. Use MIA
process for handling unresponsive DDs, and if that process is flawed
then let's discuss how to improve the situation - don't abuse other
processes.

I have previously shared my concerns on this with Andreas in person at
Debconf.  Thanks for moving the discussion here, Tobias.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: