Hi Jonas, Am Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:27:03PM +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > 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.
The offer is: fixed bugs, modernised packaging, and migration to Salsa--at no cost to the current maintainer. In fact, I've heard from several maintainers that they weren't sure how to migrate to Salsa, so this can be a helpful nudge rather than a takeover. Just for context: I've filed 33 ITS bugs so far, so ITN is not a substitute for salvage--it's what I resort to only when an ITS doesn't seem appropriate or feasible. > > 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? You're right--"Intent To NMU" is a misleading name for this. I'd gladly adopt a better term, and I appreciate any honest suggestion. Naming is hard, so thanks for helping. > > 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? >From my point of view, orphaning would be a more forceful step--closer in spirit to a QA upload, as Holger suggested. I prefer a gentler path that allows space for maintainers to re-engage if they wish. > 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? I appreciate the irony--it's a fair push to reflect on how such actions might be perceived. The goal is definitely not to shake people awake, but to give room for engagement before a package is silently left to rot. That said, tone and framing do matter, and I'm very open to adjusting both. > > 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...? It's admittedly a limited dataset, but I hoped it might help assess whether the initiative feels more like "help" or "pressure" in practice. Much of the debate seems to rest on assumptions about how people might feel or respond--I simply wanted to add some concrete examples. More broadly, please feel free to take it as a call for a better name for a process that addresses a real, currently unsolved problem. I'm also open to adjusting the process itself if we can find a better path forward. > 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? I'd prefer to avoid terms that presume bad faith or intention. The whole point of this discussion is to find a name that honestly reflects the purpose without being misleading or inflammatory. I'm still hoping we can agree on something neutral that signals both intent and openness--without framing it as a hostile act. Do you personally agree that there is a problem to be addressed, and are you mainly unhappy with my attempt at a solution, with the name I picked for it--or both? Thank you for your open words in any case and looking forward to see you in Brest Andreas. -- https://fam-tille.de
