On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > 4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by > > > retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly. > > > I fear a bit the situation "nobody care enough to comment", being > > interpreted as lack of consensus. But I do think in that case we should > > _eventually_ allow the orphaning to happen (after all 1/0 > 3/1 ACK/NACK > > </joke>). > > Any suggestion on how to word that properly, without adding yet another > > timeout rule carved in stone? > > I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you should go > ahead with the orphaning, then the system is not working as designed and > consensus has not been achieved. It's then incumbent on the person looking > to orphan the package to rattle the cage and get developers to pay > attention.
I agree with Steve on this. Regards, Bart Martens -- 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/20121024035534.ga20...@master.debian.org
