Hi! I think the proposal sounds very good in general. I just might see a problem with one of the requirements, which seems open to potential conflict.
On Sun, 2018-07-29 at 17:40:49 +0800, Tobias Frost wrote: > Reasons to salvage a package > ---------------------------- > A package is eligible for salvaging if it is in clear need of some love > and care, i.e. there are open bugs, missing upstream releases, or there > is work needed from a quality-assurance perspective; AND there is the > need to upload the package to deal with these issues; AND at least one > of these criteria applies: > > * There is no visible activity regarding the package [c] for /six > months/, OR […] > [c] Level of activity should be defined in favor of the maintainer if in > doubt. A maintainer may ask for help or welcome a NMU. This counts as > activity with respect to salvage criteria. If a package lacks uploads, > there is no visible bug triaging, and - if applicable - the source > package's VCS does not show commits this is an indication, that the > package is not well maintained. Some packages might not show activity for longish periods of time, because maintainers batch changes, for example to do at least one upload per release, with general packaging and QA updates/improvements, etc. Also there might be bugs open that are difficutl to fix (with no patch), etc, that might show no activity for a long time. So I'd probably qualify the requirement above. I'm not entirely sure how though. I mean [c] kind of covers it superficially, but I'm not sure that's clear enough or if the intention was something along these lines. For example, if there's a difficult bug open, and then a patch is sent and gets no reply, that could count as inactivity in my book, but not otherwise. Thanks, Guillem
