On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit : > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> Gergely Nagy <alger...@balabit.hu> wrote: AIUI, with the current > >> proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be orphaned, the > >> maintainer's objection is irrelevant. > > > > I would send a "NACK because the maintainer objects", and I trust > > other DDs subscribed to debian-qa to do the same. The ITO > > procedure is not meant to replace the TC handling conflicts. > > > > So why not agree now that the maintainer can veto the process?
Because this would raise the question "how long should we wait for the maintainer to object or to remain silent". In obvious cases, for example when the package has clearly not been maintained for years, then three ACKs from DDs should be sufficient to orphan the package, so that the package can be salvaged quickly, without pointless delay. In less obvious cases, for example when the maintainer objects, I trust the DDs to send NACKs to the ITO, so that the package is not orphaned forcibly. 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/20121026134025.ga17...@master.debian.org
