On 11/10/12 at 11:27 +0200, Arno Töll wrote: > Hi, > > On 11.10.2012 07:50, Bart Martens wrote: > >> - the submitter of the "intent to orphan" bug must Cc > >> debian...@lists.debian.org, and file the bug with severity:serious (this > >> was part of the "criterias" proposal). > > | 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. > > I don't think "intend to orphan" (ITO) is a good name. First of all, it > is wrong, because if you file such a bug, you eventually don't want to > orphan a package, but quite the contrary revive its maintenance. > Moreover, its name suggests it would be a WNPP bug, which it isn't and > wouldn't be.
Any ideas of better names? > * can we really be sure that random developers flying by, care enough > to look into a package they may not care about, inspect its situation > and ack/nack? The whole new mechanism could be bypassed by feedback > timeout. Frankly, many packages which could be salvaged in future are > not on of these which draw much attraction. In the process, most of the burden is put on the one requesting the orphaning. That person has to build a sufficiently strong case that the package should be orphaned. I don't expect random DDs to deeply investigate the package themselves, but rather to check the facts put forward by the requester and then ACK/NACK. That task is sufficiently lightweight that I think finding 3 DDs will be easy. Plus, the smell of blood is likely to attract DDs to look into those cases ;) > * You cannot require a 3:1 majority without giving a time window to > raise objections. The way Bart proposed it in his draft, one couldn't > make sure a 3:1 majority is reached before 75% of *all* developers > agreed for the opened case. I don't think that's desired or realistic. Correct, but addressed by Gergely's proposal in <87r4p58llk.fsf@algernon.balabit>, I think. > * How would you validate binding votes on a salvage process? You would > need to require to send signed mails to the list for seconding. > Otherwise we did not win anything over votes allowed by anyone. Yes, votes must be signed, and it's the responsibility of the requester to check the signatures. Lucas -- 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/20121012150726.gb26...@xanadu.blop.info
