On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:51:57 Ian Jackson wrote: > 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. >
Indeed. I think lack of enough acknowledgements can make process even slower. Acknowledgements will require developers to judge on other developer's intentions and I'm not sure wherever ACKs meant to approve the fact that salvaging is needed or to approve salvager and express trust to her/his capacities as maintainer. Probably not many people will find this role attractive so we can expect a lack of acknowledgements. > 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. I'm sure salvaging intent can be neutral or positive. It is merely a declaration of intent to help maintaining a package. When original maintainer is responding it is effectively a co-maintainership offer. Only when maintainer is not responding it becomes de-facto a declaration of adoption intent (ITA) so perhaps word "savlaging" is not perfect to express the idea. There is nothing to suggest that salvager has to express any criticism. As far as I can remember some adoption experiences of mine I was sincerely grateful to previous maintainers for their work. Regards, Dmitry. -- 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/201210270839.54287.only...@member.fsf.org
