On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:36:04PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy.
> >
> > This would not be "a purely informative change".
> >
> > Your suggested wording has the potential to create a HUGE amount of
> > tensions.
>
> You're right. After sending my patch I realised that it contains the
> word "should", which is a magic word in policy, imposing a normative
> requirement. This was not intended.
>
> My intended meaning: it is already best practice that *other team
> members* should orphan a package if they know that no-one in the team is
> actively taking care of it *according to their judgement of 'actively'*.
>
> Would you agree that this is already established best practice?
>...
That completely misses the problem.
If the team has remaining members, and one of these members knows that
no-one in the team is actively taking care of a package, then what
happens afterwards is obvious.
Finding unmaintained packages is the hard part.
In a bigger team maintaining 500 packages it is a non-trivial amount of
extra work searching for packages no-one inside the team is actively
taking care of.
In a small team with 2 members maintaining 1 package, what you write
obviously cannot work when the last team member becomes MIA.
With Uploaders you are able to see when all uploaders are retired/MIA,
either inside the team or from outside when the team has no active
members left.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
