Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes: > On 11/10/12 at 05:50 +0000, Bart Martens wrote: >> | Anyone can mark a package as orphaned after the following steps have >> been >> | completed : Someone submits an "intent to orphan" (ITO) in the bts with >> an >> | explanation of why he/she thinks that the package needs a new >> maintainer. The >> | explanation should cover aspects like how long there was no visible >> activity, >> | whether there are NMUs not yet acknowledged, wheter the package blocks >> progress >> | elsewhere in Debian, release critical bugs, public comments from the >> maintainer >> | revealing lack of interest in the package, ... etc. The bug must have >> severity >> | "serious" and a cc must be sent to the debian-qa mailing list. Anyone >> can >> | submit this "intent to orphan". At least three DDs (not counting the >> initial >> | submitter) second the "intent to orphan" on the same bug report with a >> cc to >> | the maintainer. If some DDs send NACKs instead, then a 3/1 majority is >> needed >> | between ACKers and NACKers. > >> And the maintainer does not respond within one month after the the third >> second. > > I'm not sure about this delay. This procedure should be used for > uncontroversial cases, where orphaning is obviously the right choice.
I strongly agree here. A package that's a salvaging candidate has already been neglected far too long, requiring another extra month of at most NMU-maintainance is counter productive. A maintainer has many ways to signal in advance that he/she will be unable to answer bug reports or mail for a longer period of time (including VAC messages on -private, and/or setting a vacation message in LDAP), many of which can and should be checked as soon as the salvaging process starts, to make sure there's no accidental overlap. With that done, I do not see the point of waiting an extra month. I would, however, put a time limit on the NACKs: one week after 3 ACKs or 3/1 majority is reached, the decision's done, and further ACKs/NACKs won't be counted. That is, we'd have a time limit on everyones ability to contribute to the salvaging process, not just a ticking clock for the maintainer. > Maybe rephrase that into "Before taking action, it could also be a good > idea to wait for comments from the maintainer, especially if he/she is > otherwise active in Debian." I'd rephrase that further, with a s/wait for/seek/, because in my opinion, the person wanting to salvage a package should go to great lengths to reach the maintainer. Merely waiting when the package is obviously neglected sounds like a very passive thing to me. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4p58llk.fsf@algernon.balabit
