On Friday, October 26, 2012 01:40:26 PM Bart Martens wrote: > 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.
It seems like an obvious bug in the proposal that I don't understand the resistance to fixing. Rather than trust is won't be a problem, why not fix the bug and change it to if there are NACKs, it's a dispute for the tech ctte? Scott K -- 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/5609089.6aMmCRQnhL@scott-latitude-e6320
