Splitting ITA into two

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl>]

This has been discussed before[1], but it'd really be nice to have a
distinction between an ITA in response to a RFA, and an ITA in response
to an O.

Since an orphaned package has by definition no real maintainer, why not
use "Intent To Maintain" for the latter use? To make it consequent, we
could change O to "Request For Maintainance" too, then you'd have:

              | Req.-> Intent
--------------+-----------------
Orphaning:    | RFM -> ITM
Adoption:     | RFA -> ITA
Helping:      | RFH    (no intent to help, as help isn't exclusive)
New packages: | RFP -> ITP

Since there are so many wnpp entries, IMHO it's really helpful if those
entry's titles are easily parseable.

In reality, one can adopt both an orphan, and also adopt a child that's
offered for adoption (and isn't orphan). In wnpp, the term 'adopting'
could be defined to be limited to the latter. It's hard to tell though
whether it's possible to force through this change in definition.

Opinions?

--Jeroen

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2004/08/msg00079.html (bottom)

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl