Quoting Andreas Tille (2025-05-07 21:09:36) > Hi Jonas, > > Am Wed, May 07, 2025 at 05:42:39PM +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > > > Since you asked: I respectfully find ITN a very bad idea. > > I intended to ask and thank you for your clearly expressed opinion. > > > ITS is a process where you intend to take over responsibility. > > Yes. > > > ITN is a process where you intend to put pressure on the existing > > maintainer for changing their way of doing *their* maintenance. > > Before getting into that, I think it's worth asking: how do we > meaningfully differentiate between "pressure" and "help"?
To me the difference is quite obvious: A blind person wants to cross the street - if you offer your arm for guidance then it is help, if you grab their arm and pull then it is pressure. > One might > argue that any unsolicited help can feel like pressure--especially in a > project of volunteers. But the underlying intent of ITN is to offer > support in situations where maintainers, for whatever reason, may no > longer have the capacity to care for a package, and to do so in a > respectful and transparent way. What is your offer? To take over? No, you don't want to do an ITS. You want to do "help" the maintainer see the light in changing their way of working themselves, by doing a one-off non-mild "NMU" which is not an NMU because it is not mild but invasive. > Also, I'd suggest we speak of a "*potentially* existing maintainer" > here. In all ITN cases, Can we please stop calling it an intent to NMU when it is invasive? > I try to verify activity through > contributors.debian.org and typically notify the MIA team if the > maintainer appears inactive. So you are talking about an ITO - intent to orphan? Or ITREAO - intent to reveal effectively an orphan? In any case, you are talking about invasive action that the current maintainer either don't care about because they don't care either way, or that they are happy about because... they were asleep and happy that you came by and gave them a friendly-but-firm shake? > Since I said its an experiment here are the current data What do you want those numbers to tell us? That there is nothing invasive about your experimental method and therefore no need to invent new acronyms because NMU is a perfectly fine descriptor, or that your method has show efficiency or that the victims (a.k.a. lucky targets of your merciful attention) were statistically happy with your coercion, or...? > > If I am mistaken and ITN is only mild one-off contributions same a NMUs > > then I fail to see a reason for simply doing a 21-day-delayed NMU. > > As I tried to outline in the longer message you responded to, the ITN > approach goes beyond what is currently described for NMUs. It often > involves broader adjustments--such as repository migration or > modernisation--that don't quite fit the usual NMU expectations. Right - so if you dislike the word pressure and I dislike the reuse of NMU for something that is not an NMU, can we agree on coercion? ITC - Intent to coerce? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
