Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> I think orphaned packages are one of our best opportunities to attract new
> developers, rather than serving as an additional obligation for existing
> developers. [etc.]
Thanks for that excellent analysis. You have convinced me that the
salvaging process should countenance orphaning packages, as well as
(or perhaps instead of) allowing a different maintainer to take them
over.
I still think that the right standard is "no objection" rather than
collecting some explicit number of acks. In particular I don't think
any number of acks ought to override a nack from the existing
maintainer.
And if we're allowing any single nack to stop it, then I don't see
what requiring ack(s) buys us. It would force the salvager to make
explicit their criticisms of the package and hence the maintainer.
Ian.
--
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/20618.41869.34617.514...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
