On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:59:09PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/24/2012 11:55 AM, Bart Martens wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > >>>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. > > > So, what will you do if: > - previous maintainer goes MIA > - Somebody wants to hija^W salvage the package and starts the procedure > - Nobody votes for this to happen... > > Should we then leave the package forever unmaintained? > I don't think this is reasonable...
Steve explained that, see above. 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/20121024161745.gb21...@master.debian.org
