On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:52:23PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:48:22PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote: > > Actual proposal follows: > > The proposal adds a new procedure that overlaps/bypasses existing procedures. > > We have discussed that before in this thread : > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00540.html > > What we essentially need, is a lightweight procedure to orphan individual > packages. I propose this : […] > After the package is orphaned, the rest of the "salvaging" fits in the existing > procedures. As a general principle, I'm with Bart here. I don't think we will benefit from a new, relatively complex, procedure that overlaps with other existing mechanisms. Socially, we need to acknowledge the fact that the current procedure to orphan packages might be too heavyweight, and too coarse-grained, to efficiently deal with the frequent situation where maintainers lose interest in specific packages. Procedurally, we need rule of thumbs that empower more active and interested maintainers to understand when they can go on. And we need to favor the current maintainers if they show up again *doing* something on the packages in question. Also, I've grown weary of procedures with several steps, each of which with delays. In my (now fairly extensive) experience in promoting what have been called "liberal NMUs", I think I've learned that the key is empowering motivated people right there, when they are active and interested. Ask them to wait in several steps, for several weeks, and most of them will probably lose interest and move on. Of course we need *some* waiting time for orphaning by 3rd-parties, but IMHO we should not require more than a reasonable time frame before acting + a long DELAYED/XX value. After that, waiting (for the DELAYED/XX value to expire) should result in the desired behavior, i.e. salvaged package. I don't know what to make of the "seconds" suggestion by Bart, though. I understand the rationale, but is not clear to me how to raise the interest by other DDs in reviewing the "intent to orphan" bugs filed by 3rd parties. Maybe we should document to post them on -qa? That *might* have the side-effect of fostering the creation of a review community for these kind of actions on -qa. Mumble mumble... Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature